This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

### Publishers

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

51260|Views: 4|Likes: 0

Published by Rajendra Bhosale

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/100587132/51260

12/18/2013

text

original

**Performance Metrics for IEEE 802.21 Media
**

Independent Handover (MIH) Signaling

David Grifﬁth, Richard Rouil, and Nada Golmie

Abstract—The IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handover

(MIH) working group is developing a set of mechanisms to

facilitate migration of mobile users between access networks

that use different link-layer technologies. Among these are

mobility managers that create and process signaling messages

to facilitate handovers. The MIH signaling architecture being

developed in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) allows

any transport layer protocol to carry MIH messages. The IETF

has considered using the unreliable but lightweight transport

available with the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) as well as

the reliable stream-oriented transport with congestion control

offered by the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). In this

paper we develop mathematical models that result in expressions

for the characteristic function of the time required to complete

exchanges of an arbitrary number of MIH signaling messages

between a mobile node (MN) and a remote mobility manager

(MM). Our models also provide expressions for the average

amount of overhead associated with MIH message exchanges

due to retransmissions either by the MIH signaling entities or by

the transport-layer protocol. In addition, we provide simulation

results that conﬁrm the results from the mathematical model and

illustrate the effect of varying transport parameters such as the

TCP maximum retransmission timeout.

Index Terms—Media Independent Handover (MIH), TCP,

UDP, handover latency, signaling overhead

I. INTRODUCTION

Handovers in mobile wireless networks have been thor-

oughly studied for the case where the handover is hori-

zontal (i.e. a mobile node’s movement causes it to end a

connection with one access point and begin another with a

different access point that uses the same Layer 2 technology

as the previous one)[1],[2]. With the proliferation of Layer

2 wireless technologies (e.g. IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) and IEEE

802.16 (WiMAX)), manufacturers of mobile telecommuni-

cations devices have recognized the beneﬁt of developing

wireless mobiles with multiple antennas that are capable of

performing so-called vertical handovers, in which the mobile

switches active connections from a network access point that

uses one Layer 2 technology to another network access point

that uses a different Layer 2 technology.

Various standards bodies such as the IETF and IEEE 802.21

have been developing new protocols to support fast handovers

at different layers. The IETF’s Mobility for IP: Performance,

Signaling and Handoff Optimization (MIPSHOP) and IP

Mobility Optimizations (MOBOPTS) working groups in the

IETF have developed enhanced versions of IPv4 and IPv6

that allow a mobile user to receive packets by maintaining

The authors are with the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA.

This work was supported in part by the Ofﬁce of Law Enforcement

Standards (OLES).

information on the user’s current location in the network.

These enhancements include Mobile IPv6 [3], Fast Mobile

IPv6 (FMIPv6) [4], Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) [5].

FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 in particular were designed to solve the

problem of excessive handover latency at Layer 3. The key

to reducing latency lies in beginning the handover process

early enough that the mobile node’s connection to the target

access network is fully prepared before the old connection fails

(make before break). This requires giving higher layers access

to link-layer information such as triggers related to received

signal quality. The IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handover

(MIH) working group is developing mechanisms to use Layer

2 triggers associated with events to provide early warning of

impending handovers and thereby decrease handover latency

[6].

The IEEE 802.21 architecture consists of MIH Users located

above Layer 4 that use MIH Service Access Points (SAPs) to

communicate with MIH services at lower layers. MIH Users

are the initiation and termination points for MIH signaling

sessions. The MIH Function (MIHF), located between Layer

2 and Layer 3, provides handover services (including the

Event Service (ES), Information Service (IS), and Command

Service (CS)) through SAPs that are deﬁned by the IEEE

802.21 working group. The IETF working group identiﬁed

low latency and reliable delivery as two key requirements

that will be imposed by some MIH Users [7]. In addition,

congestion control may be required depending on the amount

of data an MIH User generates. Thus some MIH signaling

messages should be carried over a reliable transport protocol

like TCP, which offers reliable delivery and congestion control

at the expense of low latency. Other messages may be better

delivered by a less reliable but lightweight transport protocol

like UDP. The MIPSHOP working group is considering a

number of possible transport solutions, discussed in [8].

The draft [8] allows any transport protocol to carry MIH

signaling messages, and identiﬁes several factors that can

affect the choice of transport protocol that should be consid-

ered when designing an MIH implementation. These include

message size, message generation rate, and the effect of

retransmission on performance (e.g. latency). The draft notes

that short time-sensitive messages such as those associated

with CS and ES should travel over UDP but use retransmis-

sions managed by the MIH User itself, while longer messages

such as the database updates that are part of the IS need TCP’s

congestion control. These recommendations do not include a

quantitative analysis to support them; it is our goal in this

paper to supply a general model that can be used to get

performance metrics for MIH messages over either UDP or

TCP while varying network parameters such as data rate, MIH

2

τ1

τ1 + 2(1 + TMIH(1))

τ1 + 1 + TMIH(1)

τ2

τ2 + Tproc(2)

τ3

Mobile Node (MN) Mobility Manager (MM)

t t

D1

D2

MSG1,1

MSG1,2

MSG1,3

ACK1,2

ACK1,3

MSG2,1

ACK2,1

τ1 + 1

τ2 + Tproc(2) + 2

Fig. 1. Sample signal ﬂow between MN and MM, in which packet loss

occurs.

message size, and the network transit time delay distribution.

In addition, we show results obtained using simulation tools

that we developed that allow network planners to consider

various of deployment scenarios.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II

we consider the UDP transport where MIH uses ACKs and

retransmission timers. In Section III, we consider TCP; in the

course of this analysis, we examine the effect of introducing

MIH retransmission timers in addition to TCP’s recovery

mechanisms. We use simulation results to verify our models

in Section IV, and examine some of the design trade-offs

associated with the transport layer protocols. We summarize

our results in Section V.

II. MIH SIGNALING OVER UDP

We ﬁrst consider the case where the MIH User uses UDP to

carry signaling messages. In this case, MIH ensures reliability

by requesting that each outgoing message be acknowledged

by its recipient. In addition, MIH maintains a retransmission

timer for each sent message. We denote the timer duration

for the ith MIH message by T

MIH

(i). If the ACK for the ith

message is not received by the time the retransmission timer

expires, MIH will send a new copy of the message, up to a

limit of R

i

retransmissions.

A. MIH over UDP Latency

We can derive the distribution of the time required to

complete an exchange of M MIH messages. We assume that

an MIH User that receives an MIH message immediately

generates an MIH ACK followed by an MIH response message

that constitutes the next part of the information exchange,

such as a handover signaling sequence. We show an example

message exchange between a mobile node (MN) and mobility

manager (MM) in Fig. 1. The time between the generation of

the ith ACK and the transmission of the subsequent (i +1)th

MIH message is a deterministic quantity that we denote as

T

proc

(i). This reﬂects the amount of time used by the receiving

node to perform any tasks associated with the arriving MIH

message. We deﬁne τ

i

to be the time when the (i − 1)th

message in the handover message exchange is received. For

the case of the ﬁrst message in the handover sequence, τ

1

is

the time when the message is generated. The amount of time

required to move the ith message out of the transmission buffer

is

i

= L

i

/B s, where L

i

is the length of the ﬁrst message in

bits and B is the bandwidth of the channel in bits/s. The ith

message traverses the network and, if it is not lost, it arrives

at its destination after some random delay that we denote as

D

i

.

The node that receives the ﬁrst MIH message immediately

transmits an MIH ACK and, at time τ

2

= τ

1

+

1

+ D

1

+

T

proc

(i), sends the second MIH message back to the node

that initiated the message exchange. In the ﬁgure, we show

the MIH ACKs as requiring no time to transmit. We use this

simpliﬁcation because the total time to complete the exchange,

H, is not affected by the amount of time spent sending

MIH ACKs, and because the exchange’s state advances only

when each of the two endpoints receives MIH messages.

Each message in the exchange sequence is generated at time

τ

i

= τ

i−1

+

i−1

+D

i−1

+T

proc

(i), and the exchange ﬁnishes

when the MIH ACK for the Mth MIH message is received.

The total time required to complete the exchange is

H = τ

M

+

M

+D

M

+D

M+1

−τ

1

= D

M+1

+

M

i=1

_

D

i

+

i

+T

proc

(i)

_

, (1)

where D

M+1

is the time for the Mth MIH message’s ACK

to traverse the network.

We assume that the delays {D

i

}

M+1

i=1

are independent iden-

tically distributed random variables with cumulative distrib-

ution function F

D

(t) and characteristic function Φ

D

(ω) =

_

∞

0

f

D

(t) exp(jωt)dt, where f

D

(t) = dF

D

(t)/dt is the

density of D. In practice, the delays will be correlated, since

the forward and reverse paths pass through the same network

elements; we assume independence to simplify the analysis.

In the absence of packet loss, the characteristic function of the

handover delay, Φ

H

(ω), is

_

Φ

D

(ω)

_

M+1

exp

_

jω

M

i=1

[

i

+

T

proc

(i)]

_

.

To model the case where packet losses occur, let p be the

probability that an MIH message or MIH ACK is lost while

transiting the network. The exchange of a message and ACK is

successful with probability P

s

= (1−p)

2

. For the exchange of

M messages to be successful, each message must be received

successfully. This requires that at least one of R

i

+1 attempts

to transmit the ith message be successful, for i = 1, 2, . . . , M.

The probability that a series of message transmission attempts

does not fail is 1−p

Ri+1

. Thus the probability that a message

exchange fails is

P

fail

= 1 −

M

i=1

(1 −p

Ri+1

). (2)

The product is taken over M messages, not M + 1, because

we assume that the loss of the ﬁnal MIH ACK message will

not prevent completion of the message exchange. A sender

will also re-transmit a message if the sum of the message’s

transit time and the transit time of its corresponding ACK

is greater than the timeout, T

MIH

(i). We assume that each

3

retransmitted message arrives after its preceding copy, so that

it is not possible for a message retransmission to arrive at the

destination before a retransmission that was sent earlier.

Consider the ﬁrst message in the exchange, which was ﬁrst

transmitted at time τ

1

. If the message is lost, as shown in

Fig. 1, the sender will not receive an MIH ACK and its MIH

event timer will expire at time τ

1

+

1

+T

MIH

(1). At that time,

the sender will generate a second copy of the ﬁrst message.

Each additional message that is lost will cause a timeout at

the sender’s MIH User and a retransmission of the original

message, up to a limit of R

1

+ 1 attempts in total. Fig. 1

shows an MIH ACK being lost during the the ﬁrst message’s

second transmission attempt. This does not add to the handover

delay because the MM is already responding to the ﬁrst

MIH message. Lost MIH ACKs also trigger retransmissions.

The probability that k transmission attempts fail to reach the

destination prior to a ﬁnal, successful attempt is p

k

(1 − p).

Each failure to send the ith message adds an additional

δ

i

i

+T

MIH

(i)

units of time to the total time required to complete the

signaling for the handover. We condition on the event that the

message is successfully delivered during one of its allowed

R

i

+1 transmission attempts; thus the probability that the ith

message transmission is preceded by a delay of k · T

MIH

(i) is

p

k

(1 −p)/(1 −p

Ri+1

) for k = 0, 1, . . . , R

i

.

For each of the M messages in the handover, we assume

that the loss performance is independent of that of all the other

messages. The characteristic function of the additional delay

∆

D

i

associated with timeouts caused by losses of the ith MIH

message is therefore

Φ

∆

D

i

(ω) =

1 −p

1 −p

Ri+1

Ri

k=0

p

k

e

jkωδi

=

1 −p

1 −p

Ri+1

1 −(pe

jωδi

)

Ri+1

1 −pe

jωδi

, (3)

where the D superscript indicates that MIH is in datagram

mode (i.e. using UDP transport).

Since the total exchange time H accounting for dropped

messages is H =

M+1

i=1

D

i

+

M

i=1

_

i

+T

proc

(i) +∆

D

i

_

, the

characteristic function for H is

Φ

H

(ω) = (Φ

D

(ω))

M+1

e

jω(T

P

+T

)

M

i=0

Φ

∆

D

i

(ω), (4)

where T

P

=

M

i=1

T

proc

(i) is the total message processing

time spent by both the connection endpoints, and T

=

M

i=1

i

is the total time spent transmitting the messages that

successfully reach their destinations. If the MIH User allows

the same number of retransmissions for each message, so that

R

i

= R for all i, then Equation (4) becomes

Φ

H

(ω) =

(1 −p)

M

1 −P

fail

(Φ

D

(ω))

M+1

e

jω(T

P

+T

)

×

M

i=0

(1 −(pe

jωδi

)

R+1

)

(1 −pe

jωδi

)

. (5)

Because the characteristic function of H is the Fourier

transform of the density f

H

(t), we can use it to get any

desired statistic for H. For instance, we may want to know

the probability that the exchange time exceeds some threshold

t, which may be associated with a desired level of Quality

of Service (QoS) for the MN. We compute this probability

by getting F

H

(t) = Pr{H ≤ t}, the cumulative distribution

function of H, and then computing 1−F

H

(t). We can get the

distribution function by inverting the characteristic function

using Equation (3.6) from [9], which is

F

H

(t) =

2

π

_

∞

0

Re[Φ

H

(ω)]

sin(ωt)

ω

dω. (6)

Using the trapezoidal rule, we can approximate this integral

as follows, which is Equation (4.4) from [9]:

F

H

(t) ≈

ht

π

+

2

π

N

h

k=1

Re[Φ

H

(kh)]

sin(kht)

k

, (7)

where h is the step size for the summation on the ω-axis, and

N

h

is the number of points taken in the summation. N

h

must

be large enough to produce an accurate approximation, and h

must be small enough to guarantee accuracy while not being so

small that it results in rounding errors. For the computations

that we performed for this paper we found that h ≈ 5 ×

10

−3

radians/s and N

h

= 2 ×10

4

produced good results.

We consider an example to illustrate our results. In Fig. 2,

we consider the case described in Section 10.4 of [10],

in which a mobile node (MN) signals a remote mobility

manager (MM) to perform a handover from an IEEE 802.11

WLAN network to a cellular network. We plot 1 − F

H

(t),

the probability that the handover time exceeds a given time,

t, for three cases in which the probability of packet loss

and the MIH timeout duration vary. The number of messages

required to complete the handover is M = 3. The number of

retransmissions that are allowed for each message is R = 2.

The one-way transit delay is assumed to be exponential with

an average value of 1 normalized unit of time. The processing

time associated with each message is assumed to be zero. The

MIH timeout values for all three messages are the same for

each case plotted in the ﬁgure, and are given as multiples of

µ

D

, the expected value of D, which is unity.

The effect of message retransmissions is most clearly visible

in the black curve with diamonds that is associated with

p = 0.01 and T

MIH

= 15µ

D

. The performance curve has a

staircase shape with plateaus that correspond to the packet loss

probability and whose location on the time axis is determined

by the MIH timeout. Decreasing the timeout duration to

T

MIH

= 5µ

D

produces the behavior shown in the red curve

with squares, which is much steeper and which does not

exhibit the same plateau effect that can be seen in the curve

associated with p = 0.01 and T

MIH

= 15µ

D

. If we decrease

the packet loss probability to p = 10

−4

while keeping the

MIH timeout at T

MIH

= 15µ

D

, we obtain behavior shown

by the curve with blue circles. Some plateauing is visible in

this curve; the ﬁrst plateau is located at the same position

on the time access as the ﬁrst plateau the same packet loss

probability and the larger MIH timeout. The value of 1−F

H

(t)

at this plateau is two orders of magnitude below the plateau

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

10

−6

10

−5

10

−4

10

−3

10

−2

10

−1

10

0

t, time units

P

r

{

H

>

t

}

p = 10

−2

, T = 15µ

D

p = 10

−2

, T = 5µ

D

p = 10

−4

, T = 15µ

D

Fig. 2. Probability that the handover time, H, exceeds t seconds for three

sets of values of packet loss probability p and MIH timeout, T.

associated with the packet loss probability value of 0.01.

The three curves in Fig. 2 demonstrate that the performance

of MIH over UDP does not depend on the values of the

retransmission timeout if the timeout period is on the order of

the round-trip time between the MIH connection endpoints. A

small packet loss probability will also eliminate the effect of

retransmissions.

We can get the ﬁrst and second order moments of H from

Φ

H

(ω). The expected value of H is

µ

H

=

1

j

dΦ

H

(ω)

dω

¸

¸

¸

¸

ω=0

, (8)

which we can evaluate in the case of Equation (4) as

µ

H

= (M + 1)µ

D

+T

P

+T

+

M

i=1

µ

∆

D

i

, (9)

where µ

D

is the expected one-way transit time, and µ

∆

D

i

is

µ

∆

D

i

=

1

j

dΦ

∆

D

i

(ω)

dω

¸

¸

¸

¸

ω=0

=

_

(1 −p)R

i

+ 1

1 −p

−

R

i

+ 1

1 −p

Ri+1

_

δ

i

, (10)

where lim

p→1

µ

∆

D

i

= R

i

δ

i

/2.

Recall that the transit times {D

i

}

M

i=1

are mutually indepen-

dent, and are independent of the additional delays {∆

D

i

}

M

i=1

,

which are themselves mutually independent. The processing

times and packet transmit times are deterministic. Thus the

variance of H is

σ

2

H

= (M + 1)σ

2

D

+

M

i=1

σ

2

∆

D

i

, (11)

10

−4

10

−3

10

−2

10

−1

10

0

10

−2

10

−1

10

0

10

1

10

2

Packet loss probability, p

T

i

m

e

,

s

e

c

µ

H

, T

MIH

= 10µ

D

µ

H

, T

MIH

= µ

D

σ

H

2

, T

MIH

= 10µ

D

σ

H

2

, T

MIH

= µ

D

Fig. 3. Mean and variance of the handover time H versus packet loss

probability, p, for short and long MIH timeout values (T

MIH

= µ

D

and

T

MIH

= 10µ

D

, respectively).

Each of the variances of {∆

D

i

}

M

i=1

are:

σ

2

∆

D

i

= E{(∆

D

i

)

2

} −µ

2

∆

D

i

= (−1)

d

2

Φ

∆

D

i

(ω)

dω

2

¸

¸

¸

¸

ω=0

−µ

2

∆

D

i

=

_

p

(1 −p)

2

−

(R

i

+ 1)

2

p

Ri+1

(1 −p

Ri+1

)

2

_

δ

2

i

, (12)

where lim

p→1

σ

2

∆

D

i

= (R

i

+ 2)R

i

δ

2

i

/12.

We can use Eq. (9)-(12) to plot the mean and variance of H

for MIH signaling over UDP versus the p, the probability of

message loss, in Fig. 3. For the plots in the ﬁgure, we used the

network parameters given in Table I, but we let µ

D

= 100 ms.

We let T

MIH

take values of µ

D

and 10µ

D

to show the effect of

varying the MIH timeout. For this set of network parameters,

the value of T

MIH

does not have an impact on the statistics of

H for p < 10

−3

, and the effect on µ

H

is not noticeable for

p < 10

−2

. Thus a proactive approach to handovers, including

initiating the handover before the message loss probability

becomes too large, allows consistent handover performance

over a wide range of MIH timeout values.

B. MIH over UDP Overhead

As indicated by Fig. 2, setting the timeout interval to be

on the order of the network delay will minimize the effect of

packet loss on the handover delay. Indeed, as T

MIH

(i) → 0,

the additional time required to complete a handover vanishes.

However, setting the timeout interval to be too small will result

in unnecessary generation of duplicate copies of messages,

adding to the overhead associated with the handover. We can

quantify the overhead penalty associated with a particular

set of values for the timeouts {T

MIH

(i)}

M

i=1

by computing

the expected number of messages generated per attempted

exchange.

Assuming that there are retransmission opportunities re-

maining, the sending node will transmit an additional copy of

a message if the previous copy is lost. If the previous copy is

5

not lost, a retransmission will take place if the corresponding

MIH ACK is lost. If neither the message nor its ACK are

lost, a retransmission will occur if the time from the message

transmission to the ACK reception is greater than T

MIH

(i).

Thus the probability that a given message transmission attempt

results in another copy of the message being sent is

P

rt

(i) = p + (1 −p)[p + (1 −p)(1 −F

RTT

(T

MIH

(i)))]

= (2 −p)p + (1 −p)

2

[1 −F

RTT

(T

MIH

(i))]

= 1 −(1 −p)

2

F

RTT

(T

MIH

(i)), (13)

where F

RTT

(t) is the cumulative distribution of the message

round-trip time, RTT. For ease of computation, we assume

that the RTT is the sum of two independent one-way transit

times that each have the cumulative distribution F

D

(t). Thus

F

RTT

(t) =

_

∞

0

f

D

(u)F

D

(t −u)du where f

D

(t) is the density

of D. Equivalently, the characteristic function of RTT is

Φ

RTT

(ω) = (Φ

D

(ω))

2

. For example, if D is exponential with

mean µ

D

, the cumulative distribution of RTT is

F

RTT

(t) =

_

0, t < 0

1 −(1 +t/µ

D

)e

−t/µ

D

, t ≥ 0.

The probability that the sending node generates m copies

of the ith message, given that R

i

retransmissions are allowed,

is

π

m

=

_

(1 −P

rt

(i))P

m−1

rt

(i), m = 1, 2, . . . , R

i

P

Ri

rt

(i), m = R

i

+ 1.

(14)

From this expression we can get the expected number of

messages sent,

n

i

=

Ri+1

m=1

mπ

m

= (1 −P

rt

(i))

Ri

m=1

mP

m−1

rt

(i) + (R

i

+ 1)P

Ri

rt

(i)

=

1 −P

Ri+1

rt

(i)

1 −P

rt

(i)

, (15)

and the average total number of messages required for the

exchange is

N

MSG

=

M

i=1

n

i

=

M

i=1

1 −P

Ri+1

rt

(i)

1 −P

rt

(i)

. (16)

This expression does not account for the MIH ACKs that are

generated each time a node receives an MIH message. We can

count those as well; an ACK is generated by a node each time

its MIH User receives an MIH message. For the ith message

in a M-message sequence, the sending node will produce m

copies with probability π

m

as deﬁned in Equation (14). The

probability that any one of these m copies is lost is p; the

probability that k copies out of m are successfully received

by the destination node is

m

C

k

p

m−k

(1 − p)

k

. Therefore

the expected number of MIH ACKs that are generated in

connection with the ith message is

a

i

=

Ri+1

m=1

π

m

m

k=0

_

m

k

_

kp

m−k

(1 −p)

k

= (1 −p)

Ri+1

m=1

mπ

m

= (1 −p)n

i

. (17)

To get the expected number of messages of both types sent

during the exchange, we sum a

i

over all messages {i} and

combine the resulting expression with the expected number of

MIH messages from Equation (16), giving

N = (2 −p)

M

i=1

1 −P

Ri+1

rt

(i)

1 −P

rt

(i)

. (18)

From Equation (15), n

i

→ R

i

+ 1 as P

rt

(i) → 1, which

happens when p → 1 or when T

MIH

(i) → 0. We ignore the

ﬁrst case because the probability of the exchange failure is

1. In the second case, N → 2

M

i=1

(R

i

+ 1), which is the

maximum possible number of messages that can be generated;

R

i

+1 copies of the ith message are generated for all i because

the timer immediately expires after each message transmission,

and each copy results in an MIH ACK’s being sent back.

We consider the example from Section II-A in which M = 3

and R = 2, and µ

D

= 1, so that all times are normalized to

the average transit time. We plot N for three values of the

packet error probability, p: 0.5, 0.1, and 10

−6

in Fig. 4. The

resulting curves show that the average number of messages

per exchange is insensitive to changes in p over a wide range

of values for the MIH timeout, particularly when the timeout

is on the order of the average packet transit time across the

network. As the packet loss probability increases to near unity,

we see a signiﬁcant deviation in N; if we let p →1 we would

obtain a horizontal line corresponding to N = M · R = 9.

The curves in Fig. 4 suggest that we can prevent the number

of messages generated per exchange from being excessively

large if we let the MIH timeout be at least two times larger

than the measured packet transit time.

So far, our treatment of the message exchange overhead has

considered only those cases where the exchange completes

successfully. In these cases, at least one of the R

i

+ 1

transmission opportunities succeeds at each of the M stages of

the exchange. In general, however, exchanges fail if all of the

allowed number of transmission attempts at one of the stages

result in the MIH message’s not reaching its destination. In

order to assess the load that the MIH Users collectively offer

to the network, we must consider the effect of transmissions

associated with incomplete exchanges. The probability that all

copies of the ith MIH message are lost is p

Ri+1

. Thus the

probability that the mth message is the last message in a given

exchange is

χ

m

=

_

_

_

p

R1+1

, m = 1

p

Rm+1

m−1

i=1

(1 −p

Ri+1

), 1 < m < M

M−1

i=1

(1 −p

Ri+1

), m = M

The expected number of MIH messages that are generated

during an exchange, accounting for the loss of all R

i

+1 copies

6

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

T

MIH

, multiples of mean transit time

M

e

a

n

n

u

m

b

e

r

o

f

m

e

s

s

a

g

e

s

p

e

r

h

a

n

d

o

v

e

r

p = 5 × 10

−1

p = 10

−1

p = 10

−6

Fig. 4. Mean number of messages generated by MIH signaling endpoints

during an exchange where M = 3 and R

i

= 2 for i = 1, 2, 3.

of the ith message at any point in the exchange, is

N

MSG

=

M

m=1

χ

m

m

i=1

n

i

.

We can obtain a simpliﬁed version of this expression if we as-

sume that R

i

= R and T

MIH

(i) = T

MIH

for i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , M}.

Then, P

rt

(i) = P

rt

for i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , M} as well. Deﬁning

q 1 −p

R+1

and n

1−P

R+1

rt

1−Prt

, we get

N

MSG

= (1 −q)n

M−1

m=1

mq

m−1

+Mq

M−1

n

=

(1 −q

M

)n

1 −q

=

(1 −P

R+1

rt

)(1 −(1 −p

R+1

)

M

)

(1 −P

rt

)p

R+1

. (19)

Since a

i

= (1 − p)n

i

, the total number of MIH messages in

the exchange is N = (2 −p)N

MSG

.

III. MIH SIGNALING OVER TCP

MIH provides reliable transport over UDP by using internal

timers to trigger retransmission of lost or excessively delayed

messages. We consider the case of MIH over TCP, which

is a connection-based, stream-oriented protocol that provides

reliable transport of application data. Here, MIH allows TCP to

be solely responsible for guaranteeing message reliability and

does not use its own timeouts. We compute the performance

metrics associated with a message exchange between MIH

Users by using the techniques from Section II.

There has been voluminous work on TCP behavior. In

particular, [11] and the work that builds on it, [12], have

respectively characterized the loss and delay behavior of

TCP during a steady-state bulk data transfer and during the

transmission of an arbitrarily small amount of data. A TCP

model for short-lived ﬂows, such as those associated with MIH

signaling, was developed in [13] but does not incorporate a

maximum retransmission timeout (RTO). Our latency analysis

considers the degenerate case in the model [12] in which the

number of segments to be transferred at any time is one. In

addition, we assume that the SYN/SYN-ACK exchange has

already taken place during the start up of the MIH User.

For this discussion, we assume for the sake of tractability

in the analysis that the size of each MIH message is equal to

the size of the data payload of a TCP segment. Thus, each

segment contains exactly one MIH message, which will be

sent as soon as it is put into TCP’s transmit buffer. The time

to send each message is therefore s for all i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , M}.

In practice, an MIH message may not ﬁt exactly within a TCP

segment. This mismatch will present problems with regard to

completing a message exchange in a timely manner. If the

MIH message is smaller than a TCP segment, TCP will not

send the segment until enough bits have been put into the

transmission buffer by the MIH User. This is because TCP is

a stream-oriented protocol rather than a packet-oriented one.

If MIH timeouts, described in Section II, are in use, the MIH

message may not get sent until enough duplicate copies are

put into the TCP transmit buffer to ﬁll a segment and trigger

its transmission by TCP. If MIH is not using timeouts, the

MIH message may not get sent at all. Conversely, if the MIH

message is larger than a segment, the ﬁrst portion of the MIH

message, up to an integer multiple of a segment length, will

get sent while the remainder of the message will remain in

the TCP’s buffer until enough additional bits are generated by

the MIH User to cause the segment to be transmitted.

A. MIH over TCP Latency

In the absence of MIH timeouts, TCP will automatically

retransmit messages if its own retransmission timer expires

or if it receives three duplicate acknowledgments from the

destination node at the other endpoint of the connection. We

assume that there are no unacknowledged segments when

the exchange begins. Because the TCP transmission window

will be at least one segment long, the node initiating the

message exchange will be able to transmit the ﬁrst message

immediately. If there is no packet loss, the destination node

will generate an acknowledgment for the source node as soon

as its TCP layer receives the source’s segment. When the

source node receives the acknowledgment, it will advance its

own transmission window and possibly expand its congestion

window, depending on whether it is in Slow Start mode or

Congestion Avoidance mode.

Because we assume that the source node does not have

any outstanding unacknowledged segments when it begins the

exchange, it will not receive any duplicate acknowledgments

from the destination if the ﬁrst message is lost. Therefore,

a source node will not respond to a packet loss by going

into Fast Retransmit/Fast Recovery mode; instead, it will wait

until its retransmission timer expires. When this happens,

the source node will shrink its congestion window to one

segment, retransmit the message, and double the RTO value.

If subsequent retransmitted messages are also lost, the source

node will continue to double its RTO value until it reaches

a maximum, RTO

max

= 2

K

RTO, where K is the maximum

7

τi

t

τi + + TRTO

t

τi + 2 + 3TRTO

τi + 3 + 7TRTO

τi+1

τi+1 + Tproc(i + 1)

τi+2

MSGi,1

MSGi,2

MSGi,3

Mobile Node (MN) Mobility Manager (MM)

ACKi,2

MSGi+1,1 + ACK

ACKi+1,1

Di

Fig. 5. Sample MIH signal ﬂow between MN and MM when TCP transport

is used and when some messages and TCP ACKs are lost in transit.

number of times that TCP doubles the RTO value. We assume

that TCP will continue to send copies of the lost segment until

it receives an acknowledgment from the destination endpoint.

We show an example of an MIH message transmission

over TCP in Fig. 5. In the ﬁgure, the ith message in the

message sequence, which is transmitted at time τ

i

, is lost in

transit. The lack of a TCP ACK causes the sending node’s

TCP to retransmit the segment and double the RTO. The

ﬁrst retransmission attempt succeeds in the sense that the

MM receives the message and begins preparing a response

message. However the TCP ACK is lost on the way back

to the MN, so the MN’s TCP sends a second copy of the

segment at time τ

i

+2 +3T

RTO

and doubles the RTO interval

again. This segment is also lost, and the MN’s TCP will send

another copy if no ACK arrives by the time τ

i

+ 3 + 7T

RTO

.

Because the destination node receives the ﬁrst transmission of

the MIH message at time τ

i+1

= τ

i

+ + D

i

, it generates

a response MIH message at time τ

i+1

+ T

proc

(i + 1). This

message is contained within a TCP segment whose header’s

acknowledgment ﬁeld contains the byte number that follows

the last byte of the ith message. When the MN receives this

message at time τ

i+2

, its TCP layer notes the acknowledgment

and stops retransmission of the ith message.

Our latency analysis is similar to our treatment of MIH

over UDP from Section II. The principal differences lie in

the exponential expansion of TCP’s timeout window, up to

a maximum amount, with each successive timeout and the

lack of a limit on the number of retransmission attempts.

Note that the use of TCP does not affect the time penalty

associated with each successful transit, nor does it affect the

processing times for each message at the MIH layer. Thus the

only change is a new expression for the additional time penalty

imposed on the ith message in the message sequence. Because

the RTO doubles with each retransmission, the time when the

rth retransmission occurs (given the ﬁrst transmission attempt

occurred at time τ

i

) is τ

i

+r+T

RTO

+2T

RTO

+· · ·+2

r−1

T

RTO

=

τ

i

+ r + (2

r

− 1)T

RTO

for r = 1, 2, . . . , K. Immediately

after the rth retransmission attempt, TCP expands the RTO to

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

10

−6

10

−5

10

−4

10

−3

10

−2

10

−1

10

0

t, time units

P

r

{

H

>

t

}

p = 10

−4

, R = 2, K = 2

p = 10

−4

, R = 2, K = 6

p = 10

−2

, R = 2, K = 6

p = 10

−2

, R = 4, K = 6

p = 10

−4

, R = 4, K = 6

p = 10

−4

, R = 1, K = 6

Fig. 6. Probability that the MIH message exchange time, H, exceeds t

seconds for six sets of values of packet loss probability p, RTO, and number

of RTO stages, K.

2

r

T

RTO

. At the Kth retransmission attempt, the retransmission

occurs at time τ

i

+ K + 2

K

T

RTO

− T

RTO

= τ

i

+ K +

RTO

max

− T

RTO

, after which the RTO expands to RTO

max

.

For subsequent retransmissions (r > K), the RTO remains

at its maximum value and the rth retransmission occurs at

time τ

i

+r +(r −K +1)RTO

max

−T

RTO

. The characteristic

function of the extra delay ∆

C

i

caused by packet loss when

MIH is using TCP transport (i.e. in connection mode) is thus

Φ

∆

C

i

(ω)

= (1 −p)

K

r=0

p

r

e

jω[r+(2

r

−1)TRTO]

+ (1 −p)

∞

r=K+1

p

r

e

jω[r+(r−K+1)RTOmax−TRTO]

= (1 −p)

K

r=0

p

r

e

jω[r+(2

r

−1)TRTO]

+

(1 −p)p

K+1

e

jω[(K+1)+2RTOmax−TRTO]

1 −pe

jω(+RTOmax)

. (20)

Inserting this expression into Equation (4) in place of Φ

∆

D

i

(ω)

gives us the characteristic function for H. By inverting Φ

H

(ω)

to obtain F

H

(t) using Equation (6), we can again get Pr{H >

t} = 1 −F

H

(t) for various values of t. We plot performance

curves for the case where M = 3 in Fig. 6, which shows that,

similar to the UDP case, latency is minimized by using small

timeouts and fewer backoff stages. In addition, we observe the

same plateau effects that we saw in the UDP case; they are

most noticeable when the packet loss rate is high.

We can use the characteristic function to obtain the expected

value and the variance of the exchange time, H. The expres-

sion for µ

H

is nearly identical to Equation (9); the only change

is replacing µ

∆

D

i

with the expected value of ∆

C

i

, which we

obtain from Equation (20) as follows:

µ

∆

C

i

=

p

1 −p

+

(1 −p −2

K

p

K+1

)p

(1 −p)(1 −2p)

T

RTO

. (21)

8

The second fraction assumes the indeterminate form 0/0 when

p = 1/2. We can use L’Hˆ opital’s Rule to get

lim

p→1/2

µ

∆

C

i

= +

K+ 2

2

T

RTO

.

Equation (21) is closely related to Equation (18) in [12], which

itself comes from [11]. We can manipulate our Equation (21)

to produce Equation (18), with an additional factor of p,

by letting → 0 and observing that the general form of

Equation (19) from [12], G(p) = 1 +

K

k=1

2

k−1

p

k

, can be

written as

G(p) =

1 −p −2

K

p

K+1

1 −2p

.

The cause of the additional factor of p is that Equation (18)

gives the average duration of Z

TO

, the TCP timeout period,

given that a timeout occurred; thus Z

TO

must be at least T

RTO

time units long. Our Equation (21) gives the average time to

transmit a segment in addition to the network transit delay; the

occurrence of a timeout is not a given condition, and so ∆

C

i

has a minimum value of zero. We can also relate Equation (21)

to the expression for C

1

1

(the mean time to send one segment

with an initial congestion window size of one segment) in [13]

by letting K →∞, since their model assumes no upper bound

on the RTO value. The expression in [13] has an additional

factor of p as well, because we are computing the additional

delay due to message losses.

The variance of H when MIH messages use TCP is given

by Eq. (11) with σ

2

∆

C

i

replacing σ

2

∆

D

i

. We get the variance of

∆

C

i

in the same way that we got Equation (12), which gives

us a more complex but still closed-form expression:

σ

2

∆

C

i

= 2

(1−p)

2

−(2p)

K

p(2+K−3(K+1)p+2Kp

2

)

(1−p)

2

(1−2p)

2

pT

RTO

+

_

1−p

(1−2p)

2

(1−4p)

+

(2p)

K+1

(1−6p−(2

K+4

−9)p

2

−4p

3

)

(1−p)

2

(1−2p)

2

(1−4p)

−

(4p)

K

p(7−29p−4p

3

+p

K+2

−4p

K+3

)

(1−p)

2

(1−2p)

2

(1−4p)

_

pT

2

RTO

+

p

2

(1−p)

2

.

(22)

This quantity becomes undeﬁned when p = 1/2 or p = 1/4.

As in the case of µ

∆

C

i

, we can take limits and get

lim

p→1/4

σ

2

∆

C

i

=

4

9

2

+

2(−5 + 9 · 2

K

) −3K

9 · 2

K

T

RTO

+

4

K

(27K −1) + 9 · 2

K+1

−1

9 · 4

K+1

T

2

RTO

(23)

and

lim

p→1/2

σ

2

∆

C

i

= 2

2

+

8 + 5K +K

2

2

T

RTO

+

2(−9 + 13 · 2

K

) −8K −K

2

4

T

2

RTO

. (24)

We show plots of µ

H

and σ

2

H

in Fig. 7, using the same

parameters that we used to generate Fig. 3. Here we consider

two values of the TCP RTO value, µ

D

and 10µ

D

. Note that

the performance of UDP and TCP is identical for small values

of p, and that the value of p for which there is a noticeable

increase in the value of µ

H

and σ

2

H

is around the same for

both the UDP and TCP transport cases. When TCP is used,

10

−4

10

−3

10

−2

10

−1

10

0

10

−2

10

−1

10

0

10

1

10

2

Packet loss probability, p

T

i

m

e

,

s

e

c

µ

H

, T

RTO

= 10µ

D

µ

H

, T

RTO

= µ

D

σ

H

2

, T

RTO

= 10µ

D

σ

H

2

, T

RTO

= µ

D

Fig. 7. Mean and variance of the handover time H versus packet loss

probability, p, for short and long TCP RTO values (T

RTO

= µ

D

and T

RTO

=

10µ

D

, respectively).

the mean and variance of H increase without bound as p →1,

because TCP attempts to deliver an unacknowledged segment

until it receives an ACK. The gain from doing this is the

eventual success of the transmission as long as p = 1, but

this beneﬁt is less meaningful in the case of signaling for

handovers, because the amount of time available to complete

message delivery is short. Again, this ﬁgure demonstrates the

importance of beginning critical handover signaling exchanges

early, so that degrading link conditions do not expand the

amount of time required to successfully deliver signaling

messages.

B. MIH over TCP overhead

We also can compute the expected number of messages

generated during a message exchange as a function of the

RTO value T

RTO

and the packet loss probability, p. Similar to

the UDP case, retransmission of an MIH message occurs if

the message is lost, its TCP ACK is lost or the RTO timer

expires before the sender receives the ACK. However, we

have to account for the exponential dilation of the timeout

interval until it reaches its ﬁnal value, RTO

max

. Thus, similar

to Equation (13), the probability that the kth transmission

attempt fails and requires another attempt is

φ

k

=

_

1 −(1 −p)

2

F

RTT

(2

k−1

T

RTO

), k ≤ K

1 −(1 −p)

2

F

RTT

(RTO

max

), k > K.

(25)

where we assume that T

RTO

is the same for all M messages

in the message sequence. We assume that there is no limit on

the number of times TCP attempts to retransmit a segment.

The probability that m copies of the ith message gets sent

is the probability that the TCP ACK for the mth transmitted

copy of the MIH message arrives within the time limit after

m− 1 failures. Deﬁning psi 1 − (1 − p)

2

F

RTT

(RTO

max

),

9

(i.e. φ

k

= ψ for k > K) we have

π

m

=

_

_

_

1 −φ

1

, m = 1

(1 −φ

m

)

m−1

k=1

φ

k

, 1 < m ≤ K

(1 −ψ)(ψ)

m−K−1

K

k=1

φ

k

, m > K

(26)

for m ∈ Z

+

, the set of positive integers. Using this expression

we can get the mean number of copies sent for a given

message:

n

i

=

∞

m=1

mπ

m

= 1 −φ

1

+

K

m=2

m(1 −φ

m

)

m−1

k=1

φ

k

+

∞

m=K+1

m(1 −ψ)(ψ)

m−K−1

K

k=1

φ

k

= 1 −φ

1

+

K

m=2

m(1 −φ

m

)

m−1

k=1

φ

k

+

1 +K(1 −ψ)

1 −ψ

K

k=1

φ

k

. (27)

As was the case with MIH transport over UDP, k out of

m segments generated by a source will arrive at their des-

tination (and cause ACKs to be sent back) with probability

m

C

k

p

m−k

(1−p)

k

. Thus the expected number of ACKs is (1−

p)n

i

, and the total number of messages created in connection

with the ith phase of the exchange is (2 − p)n

i

. Because

the retransmission parameters do not change from message

to message, n

i

is a constant, and the mean total number of

messages sent during an exchange is N = (2 −p)Mn, where

n is given in Equation (27).

In Fig. 8, we plot the average number of messages in

a handover versus RTO, where the RTO is expressed as

multiples of the average one-way network transit time, µ

D

.

The handover exchange is composed of M = 3 MIH messages

where TCP is used for transport and there are no timeouts

and retransmissions at the MIH User. The ﬁgure bears a

strong resemblance to Fig. 4, which plots N versus the MIH

timeout for the MIH/UDP case. An important difference is

the asymptote at RTO = 0, which is due to our assumption

that TCP never stops trying to send an un-ACKd segment. In

contrast, MIH is limited to a ﬁnite number of retransmission

attempts when it uses UDP. The MIH/TCP case is similar to

the MIH/UDP case in that reducing the timeout to be on the

order of the network round-trip time signiﬁcantly increases

N in both cases. Thus a conservative RTO estimate reduces

overhead, but this is a TCP function that is not controllable

by the MIH User.

C. The Effect of Combining MIH Timeouts with TCP

In this subsection, we present an analytical model that quan-

tiﬁes some of the negative effects that result from combining

the TCP layer and MIH User retransmission mechanisms. The

MIH User generates an MIH ACK message for each MIH

message that it receives. Our model examines the case of an

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

RTO, multiples of mean transit time

M

e

a

n

n

u

m

b

e

r

o

f

m

e

s

s

a

g

e

s

p

e

r

h

a

n

d

o

v

e

r

p = 5 × 10

−1

p = 10

−1

p = 10

−6

Fig. 8. Mean number of messages generated by MIH signaling endpoints

using TCP transport during a handover where M = 3 and K = 6, for various

RTO values.

MIH Indication message transmission from a MN to the MM.

This exchange involves one MIH message and one MIH ACK,

for a total of two messages generated jointly by both nodes’

MIH Users. In addition to the MIH messages, the connection

endpoints generate TCP ACKs every time they receive a TCP

segment.

There are two cases involving the relative values of the MIH

timeout T

MIH

and the TCP timeout, T

RTO

. We consider only the

case where the MIH timeout occurs later than the initial value

of the TCP RTO (T

MIH

≥ T

RTO

). Letting the MIH timeout

occur before the RTO would introduce additional copies of

the message into the TCP queue before TCP has a chance to

time out and retransmit, resulting in unnecessary extra trafﬁc.

In this situation, the MIH User’s timeout occurs after the TCP

RTO, so the MIH layer will not begin generating duplicate

messages until TCP has been in Timeout mode for some

period of time. The number of messages that the MIH User

generates depends on the amount of time that TCP spends

in Timeout retransmitting the original copy of the message.

We ﬁrst examine the Request message from the MN to the

MM. The MIH layer will produce m additional copies of the

1st message, 0 ≤ m ≤ R

1

, if the time from the ﬁrst message

transmission attempt until the TCP layer receives an ACK, U

1

,

lies in the half-open interval

_

mT

MIH

(1), (m+1)T

MIH

(1)

_

. The

probability of this event is

Pr{U

1

∈

_

mT

MIH

(1), (m+ 1)T

MIH

(1)

_

}

=

_

(m+1)TMIH(1)

mTMIH(1)

f

U1

(u) du

= F

U1

((m+ 1)T

MIH

(1)) −F

U1

(mT

MIH

(1)). (28)

Because MIH is limited to a ﬁnite number of retransmissions,

R

1

, it follows that the probability of exactly R

1

retransmis-

sions is the probability that U

1

is greater than R

1

T

MIH

(1),

which is 1 −F

T

M

(R

1

T

MIH

(1)).

From our analysis in Section III, we know that τ

2

− τ

1

=

D

1

+ ∆

C

1

, so we have already characterized the random

10

time from the ﬁrst transmission attempt to the segment’s

successful reception at the MM; its characteristic function is

Φ

D

(ω)Φ

∆

C

1

(ω). We next get the characteristic function of U

1

,

the time from the 1st message’s reception at the MM to the

arrival of a TCP ACK at the MN. There are two ways the

MN can get a TCP ACK from the MM. The MN can receive

a TCP ACK in the header of the MIH ACK that the MM’s

MIH User generates when it receives the MN’s MIH message;

this assumes that the MM’s TCP uses delayed ACKs. The

MN can also receive a TCP ACK in the header of the next

MIH message in the handover sequence, as long as the MM’s

transmission window is large enough to send both the MIH

ACK and the second MIH message. When any one of these

packets ﬁrst arrives at the MN, the local TCP will note that

the transmitted segment was correctly received. If the ACK

is received before T

RTO

units of time have expired, TCP will

continue normal operations. If the MN receives the ACK after

TCP has gone into timeout, TCP will end the timeout and

begin Slow Start.

We compute the characteristic function for ∆

C

1,ACK

, the

additional time required to send the MIH ACK for MSG

1

from

the MM to the MN. There are two possibilities, depending

on whether T

proc

(2) is larger than T

RTO

. If T

proc

(2) ≥ T

RTO

and the MIH ACK gets lost in transit, the MM’s TCP will

time out before the 2nd MIH message is ready to be sent; the

message will go into the transmission queue until the MM’s

TCP receives an ACK. The MM’s TCP will behave exactly

like the MN’s TCP, retransmitting the MIH ACK’s segment

and expanding the RTO at each attempt until it reaches its

maximum value, RTO

max

= 2

K

T

RTO

.

In Fig. 9, we show the exchange of messages between

the MN and MM when MIH reliability mechanisms (ACKs

and retransmissions) are used in addition to TCP, and when

T

proc

(2) > T

RTO

. The 1st MIH message travels from the MN

to the MM and is delayed by D

1

units of time. There is

an additional time penalty of ∆

C

1

units associated with failed

attempts by the MN’s TCP to transmit MSG

1

. Immediately

upon receiving MSG

1

, the MM’s MIH layer sends an MIH

ACK to the MN whose TCP header contains the sequence

number of the last octet in MSG

1

. We assume that all MIH

messages and MIH ACKs have the same transmission duration

of units of time. The delay experienced by the MIH ACK is

D

1,ACK

, which has the same characteristic function, Φ

D

(ω),

as D

1

. Failed transmission attempts by the MM’s TCP cause

an additional delay of ∆

C

1,ACK

. When the MIH ACK ﬁnally

arrives at the MN, the MN’s TCP immediately responds with

a 40-byte TCP ACK, which reaches the MM after a delay

of D

1,ACK

time units, where D

1,ACK

also has characteristic

function Φ

D

(ω). Like [12], we assume that TCP ACKs are

never lost in transit. From Fig. (9),

Φ

U1

(ω) =

_

Φ

D

(ω)

_

2

Φ

∆

C

1

(ω)Φ

∆

C

1,ACK

(ω)e

j2ω

. (29)

where Φ

∆

C

1,ACK

(ω) is given by Equation (20).

If T

proc

(2) ≤ T

RTO

, and the MM’s TCP transmission window

is at least two segments long, the MM will send the 2nd MIH

message before the RTO expires, as shown in Fig. 10. In the

ﬁgure, we show the case where both the MM’s MIH ACK

τ

1

τ

2

Mobile Node (MN) Mobility Manager (MM)

t t

D

1

D

1,ACK

copies

MSG

1

ACK

TCP ACK

MSG

1

lost

ACKs

MSG

1

lost

∆

C

1

∆

C

1,ACK

D

1,ACK

MSG

1

U

1

Fig. 9. Signal ﬂow for an exchange of an MIH message and MIH ACK

message between MN and MM over TCP, when Tproc(2) > T

RTO

.

τ

1

τ

2

Mobile Node (MN) Mobility Manager (MM)

t t

copies

MSG

1

ACK

TCP ACK

MSG

1

lost

ACKs

MSG

1

add’l lost

MSG

1

U

1

τ

2

+ T

proc

(2)

τ

2

+ T

RTO

MSG

1

ACK

MSG

2

Fig. 10. Signal ﬂow for an exchange of an MIH message and MIH ACK

message between MN and MM over TCP, when Tproc(2) ≤ T

RTO

.

and MSG

2

transmissions fail. If no ACK comes back from

the MN by the time t = τ

2

+ T

RTO

, the MM’s TCP will

enter timeout, shrink its congestion window to one segment,

and begin retransmitting the MIH ACK while the 2nd MIH

message waits in the transmission queue. So the MM will have

one attempt to send the 2nd MIH message before its TCP goes

into timeout. The MN has two chances to receive a segment

containing an ACK for the 1st MIH message and send an ACK

back to the MM. Because of this, the characteristic function

for ∆

C

1,ACK

changes slightly from its form in Equation (20),

as we now show.

In this case, ∆

C

1,ACK

takes the values 0 and T

proc

(2) with

probabilities (1−p) and (1−p)p, respectively. The ﬁrst retrans-

mission of the MIH ACK happens at time t = τ

2

++T

RTO

if

no ACK is received for either the MIH ACK or the 2nd MIH

message, so ∆

C

1,ACK

= + T

RTO

with probability (1 − p)p

2

.

Continuing this pattern and using the results of our analysis

in Section III, we see that ∆

C

1,ACK

= r + (2

r

−1)T

RTO

with

probability (1−p)p

r+1

, for r = 1, 2, . . . , K. Recalling that the

maximum RTO is RTO

max

= 2

K

T

RTO

, we see that ∆

C

1,ACK

=

11

r +(r −K+1)RTO

max

−T

RTO

with probability (1−p)p

r+1

for r ≥ K. Thus we obtain the following expression for the

characteristic function when T

proc

(2) < T

RTO

:

Φ

∆

C

1,ACK

(ω)

= (1 −p) + (1 −p)pe

jωTproc(2)

+(1 −p)

K

r=1

p

r+1

e

jω[r+(2

r

−1)TRTO]

+ (1 −p)

∞

r=K+1

p

r+1

e

jω[r+(r−K+1)RTOmax−TRTO]

= (1 −p)[1 +pe

jωTproc(2)

]

+(1 −p)

K

r=1

p

r+1

e

jω[r+(2

r

−1)TRTO]

+

(1 −p)p

K+2

e

jω[(K+1)+2RTOmax−TRTO]

1 −pe

jω(+RTOmax)

. (30)

From Fig. (10), we can work out the characteristic function of

U

1

by conditioning on the whether MSG

2

is lost in transit, as

follows:

Φ

U1

(ω) = (1 −p)

_

Φ

D

(ω)

_

2

Φ

∆

C

1

(ω)Φ

∆

C

1,ACK

(ω)e

j2ω

+ p

_

Φ

D

(ω)

_

2

Φ

∆

C

1

(ω)e

jω(2+Tproc(2))

=

_

(1 −p)Φ

∆

C

1,ACK

(ω) +pe

jωTproc(2)

_

×

_

Φ

D

(ω)

_

2

Φ

∆

C

1

(ω)e

j2ω

,

where Φ

∆

C

1,ACK

(ω) is given by Equation (30).

With the characteristic function Φ

U1

(ω) in hand, we can get

an estimate of the MIH overhead by computing the size of the

backlog of copies of the MIH Indication message at the MN

at the time the MN receives a TCP ACK for the MIH Request

message. Using Equation (28) and the inversion formula in

Equation (6), we get β(m) Pr{m messages in backlog}:

β(m) = Pr{mT

MIH

(1) ≤ U

1

< (m+ 1)T

MIH

(1)}

= F

U1

_

(m+ 1)T

MIH

(1)

_

−F

U1

_

mT

MIH

(1)

_

=

2

π

_

∞

0

Re[Φ

U1

(ω)]

_

sin

_

(m+ 1)ωT

MIH

(1)

_

−sin

_

mωT

MIH

(1)

_

_

dω

ω

(31)

for m = 0, 1, 2, . . . , R

1

−1 and

β(R

1

) = Pr{U

1

> R

1

T

MIH

(1)}

= 1 −F

U1

_

R

1

T

MIH

(1)

_

= 1 −

2

π

_

∞

0

Re[Φ

U1

(ω)] sin

_

ωR

1

T

MIH

(1)

_

dω

ω

.

(32)

The expected number of messages in the backlog is B =

R1

m=0

mβ(m). Thus the average number of MIH messages

put into the TCP transmission queue for each MIH message

that the MIH User needs to send is the original message plus

the ones in the backlog, or 1 +B.

In Fig. 11, we we plot the average backlog size versus p,

the probability of MIH message loss for three different values

10

−2

10

−1

10

0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

p

B

T

MIH

=150 msec, T

RTO

= 200 ms

T

MIH

=200 msec, T

RTO

= 200 ms

T

MIH

=400 msec, T

RTO

= 200 ms

T

MIH

=150 msec, T

RTO

= 2 ms

T

MIH

=200 msec, T

RTO

= 2 ms

T

MIH

=400 msec, T

RTO

= 2 ms

Fig. 11. Plot of B, the average size of the message backlog generated

by MIH retransmissions due to expiration of the MIH timer, versus p, the

probability of message loss for different values of the MIH timeout, T

MIH

.

of the MIH timeout, T

MIH

: 150 ms, 200 ms, and 400 ms.

We used the set of parameters shown in Table I, including

T

RTO

= 200 ms; we also used T

RTO

= 2 ms to show the

effect of increasing the TCP retransmission rate. For all three

values of T

MIH

and for T

RTO

= 200 ms, B is insensitive to

p for p < 0.01. The ﬁgure also shows that increasing the

MIH timeout reduces the size of the backlog. Computing B

using different values for T

proc

does not result in a signiﬁcant

change in the curves. Note that using a smaller value of T

RTO

produce curves that have the same value for small values of

p as the curves where T

RTO

= 200 ms; the small T

RTO

curves

are ﬂatter and begin increasing toward R at a larger value of

p. This is because decreasing T

RTO

= 200 increases the TCP

retransmission rate and it becomes more likely that a TCP

ACK will arrive at the MN before the MIH timeout expires,

thus reducing the backlog, although it will increase the TCP

segment transmission rate.

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

To further quantify the performance of the MIH User over

different transport layers, we performed a set of simulations

using the ns-2 tool, which we enhanced by extending the tool’s

mobility framework [14]. To generate our results, we used a

simple network topology shown in Fig. 12 that consists of a

mobility manager located at a remote Point of Service (PoS)

connected to an access point via a backbone network that we

have abstracted as a single router and a lossy link. Within

the coverage area of the access point is a single mobile node

that communicates with the access point over a IEEE 802.11

wireless LAN link.

In each scenario that we considered, the MN ﬁrst connects

to the AP and registers with the PoS. Then, depending on

whether we are simulating Indications or Request/Response

exchanges, the MN generates Indications every 0.5 second

or the PoS generates requests every 0.5 second, respectively.

We take performance measurements by taking traces of the

relevant output parameters and averaging those traces over

12

Fig. 12. Network topology used in simulations of Indication and Re-

quest/Response MIH message exchanges.

4000 seconds of simulation time, between the 5 s and 4005 s

marks. The typical standard deviation of the data in each of

the graphs in this section is on the order of 1% of the mean

data value plotted; thus error bars would not be visible and so

are not plotted.

The parameters that we used in our simulations are shown in

Table I. The simulations examined two types of MIH message

exchanges. The ﬁrst type consists of a Indication message

sent by the mobile node to the mobility manager. The second

type of exchange involves a Request message generated by

the mobility manager which produces a Response message

from the mobile node. Both types of MIH message exchanges

occur according to a Poisson process with an average exchange

arrival rate of two events per second. Each simulation run

covered a time interval of 6005 seconds. The packet loss rate

on the link connecting the router to the access point was

allowed to vary between 0 and 0.5. Two different transport

layers were used in the simulations: UDP and TCP. The

parameters for both transport layers are given in Table I. We

used a variety of values for the TCP maximum RTO, as shown

in the table, and varied the link loss rate for each maximum

RTO value that we used.

We plot values for the probability that MIH transaction

completes successfully in Fig. 13. We compare the results from

ns-2 with theoretical results that we obtained by computing

1 − P

fail

from Equation (2). In all the scenarios that we con-

sidered, we obtained excellent agreement between the values

predicted by the model and the results that we obtained from

the simulations. The graph further shows that the probability

that a message exchange is unable to complete successfully de-

creases as the number of the packets in the exchange increases,

as we would expect. In addition, using MIH acknowledgments

signiﬁcantly increased the success rate.

A. MIH Delay

In this subsection, we examine the delay performance of

MIH over both UDP and TCP transport layers. In all of the

TABLE I

SIMULATION PARAMETERS

IEEE 802.11

Data rate (Mb/s) 11Mb/s

Coverage area radius (m) 50

Links

Speed (Mb/s) 100

Delay (s) 0.01

UDP

Max packet size (byte) 1000

Header size (bytes) 8

TCP

Max Segment Size (bytes) 1280

Min RTO (s) 0.2

Max retransmission Unlimited

Queue size Unlimited

Header size (bytes) 20

IP header

IPv6 header (bytes) 40

MIH Function

Transaction timeout (s) none

R

i

2

Tproc(2) (s) 0.2

Simulation conﬁguration

Duration (s) 6005

loss probability, p variable [0, 50%]

RTOmax (s) 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.75, 1

Indications/s 2

Requests/s 2

MIH Packet size (bytes) 200

Fig. 13. Theoretical and simulated values for MIH transaction completion

probability.

ﬁgures in this subsection, the sets of parameters that we used

are indicated in the legend appearing in the ﬁgure.

In Fig. 14 we plot the average time required to com-

plete the simple Indication transmission as well as the Re-

quest/Response message exchange. The bars in the ﬁgure do

not show the variance of the simulation data; rather they

show the value of the standard deviation of the completion

time, i.e. the upper terminus of a bar is located at a value

one standard deviation greater than the corresponding mean.

We examine the delay with MIH acknowledgment messages

and retransmissions (for which T

MIH

= 0.5 s for Indications

and T

MIH

= 0.3 s for Request/Response) and without. In

the ﬁgure, there are two sets of horizontal marks that corre-

13

Fig. 14. Theoretical and simulation values of mean MIH handover time for

MIH handovers where M = 1 (Indication) and M = 2 (Request/Response)

over UDP.

spond to the scenarios in which MIH Indications and MIH

Request/Response exchanges take place without the use of

MIH ACKs. In both cases, the message exchange will fail

unless the initial attempt to transmit each MIH message is

successful. Thus, the only variance in the exchange completion

time comes from random delays in the network which, in this

case, are very small. We have an average delay of 20 ms and

240 ms for the Indication and Request/Response exchanges,

respectively. The delay curves also show strong agreement

between the simulation results and the mathematical model’s

prediction from Equation (9) and Equation (10), especially for

small values of p.

In Fig. 15 we show simulation results showing the mean

message exchange time for Indications when TCP is used in

addition to MIH ACKs and timeouts. The MIH timeout T

MIH

is set to 3RTO

max

. The ﬁgure shows much greater sensitivity

to the packet loss probability as the transaction delay increases

exponentially with respect to the value of T

RTO

. In addition,

using MIH ACKs over TCP further increases the average

delay. When MIH ACKs are used and the average TCP round-

trip delay is greater than the MIH retransmission timeout

interval, MIH will create duplicate packets that go into the

TCP queue. These duplicate packets cause additional delays

because all of them must be transmitted and acknowledged

before the next MIH Indication message can be sent.

We also show simulation results showing the mean transac-

tion completion time for Request/Response exchanges when

TCP is used in addition to MIH ACKs and timeouts in Fig. 16.

We observe that the exchange completion time decreases when

the packet loss reaches 45% for larger values of RTO

max

. This

is because the delays at this level of packet loss are so large and

most Request/Response transactions do not complete within

the ACK timeout interval. Thus the delay shown in the ﬁgure

is associated only with the minority of successful exchanges.

To further show the negative effect of combining MIH

retransmissions with TCP’s reliable delivery, we plot the

average Indication completion time for the case where we use

Fig. 15. Mean MIH Indication transaction completion time over TCP

transport with MIH timeouts and acknowledgments.

Fig. 16. Mean MIH Request/Response transaction completion time over TCP

transport with MIH timeouts and acknowledgments.

TCP transport without MIH reliability features in Fig. 17. If

no MIH ACK is used, the MIH User sends a Request and

waits for a Response. In our scenario, the Responses received

are always considered valid although that might not be the

case in real implementations. The ﬁgure does not exhibit the

type of severe performance degradation that we observed in

Fig. 15, largely because the TCP transmission queue is no

longer being ﬁlled with extra copies of messages that were

lost during transmission attempts. If we compare the average

delay to what we observed in connection with UDP, we see

that the average completion time is much higher in the case of

TCP. However, using TCP results in a much lower probability

that a given exchange will fail.

In Fig. 18 we show the average Request/Response comple-

tion time when MIH retransmission are not being used over

TCP. As we expect, the transaction delay for a given maximum

RTO value is approximately 2.25 times greater than it is in the

case when only a Indication message is being transmitted, as

14

Fig. 17. Mean MIH Indication transaction completion time over TCP

transport without MIH timeouts and acknowledgments.

Fig. 18. Mean MIH Request/Response transaction completion time over TCP

transport without MIH timeouts and acknowledgments.

shown in Fig. 17. Note that in all four ﬁgures we do not begin

to see serious increases in the delay for either type of message

exchange until the packet loss probability is on the order of

0.1. Also, the large average delay values associated with packet

loss rates of near 0.5 are an indication that a greater number of

transactions are able to successfully complete within the time

limit than we observed when we used MIH reliability features

in conjunction with TCP.

B. MIH Overhead

In this subsection, we examine the amount of overhead

associated with the various transport layer options. In Fig. 19

we plot theoretical and simulation results for transport over

UDP for both the Indication and Request/Response exchanges.

We observed very close agreement between the theoretical

and simulation results for the Indication exchange, and a

maximum error of 7% for the Request/Response exchange

when p = 0.25. If MIH reliability is not in use, there is no

Fig. 19. Theoretical and simulation values of MIH overhead for Indication

and Request/Response exchanges over UDP.

overhead penalty although this will result in a lower success

rate for both types of exchanges. With MIH acknowledgments

and retransmissions, we observed a slightly higher overhead

penalty in connection with Indication exchanges relative to

the Request/Response case. This follows from Equation (19),

which shows that increasing M, the number of messages in

an exchange, decreases N

MSG

, with N

MSG

→n/(1−q) as M

becomes large.

Next we examine overhead associated with using TCP

transport. In Fig. 20 and Fig. 21, we plot the expected

number of MIH packets sent to the transport layer per MIH

message generated by the MIH User for Indications and

Request/Response exchanges, respectively. If retransmissions

by the MIH layer are turned off, this number is 1. When

there is no packet loss (p = 0), an MIH ACK message

gets sent for each indication/request/response that a node

receives. Therefore the minimum number of MIH packets

sent per message is two if MIH ACKs are being used. As

the packet loss rate increases, the MIH User will retransmit

messages up to two times. The maximum number of packets

for each MIH Indication is therefore 6 (3 copies of the message

and 3 corresponding MIH ACKs), as seen in Fig. 20. In

the case of Request/Response exchanges, if the TCP delay

is too large, Requests will arrive late at the MN, whose

Response will be ignored by the PoS, which will in turn create

another Request. The maximum overhead is 4.5 since there

are at most 3 Requests, 3 ACKs, and 3 Responses for each

Request/Response pair. If we examine both graphs, we observe

that the amount of overhead increases as we decrease the

maximum RTO, which is what we would expect. Furthermore,

signiﬁcant increases in overhead to not occur until the packet

loss probability exceeds 0.1.

V. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we developed characteristic functions that

let us obtain the distribution and moments of the time to

exchange an arbitrary number of MIH messages using either

UDP with MIH retransmissions and acknowledgments or using

15

Fig. 20. Simulation values of MIH overhead for Indication messages over

TCP with MIH ACKs.

Fig. 21. Simulation values of MIH overhead for Request/Response exchanges

over TCP with MIH ACKs.

TCP. We also developed expressions for the average overhead

expressed as extra message transmissions due to packet losses.

Our results verify that there is a tradeoff between latency and

overhead. Adjusting timeout values to reduce latency, whether

in the MIH User if UDP is being used or at the transport

layer if TCP is being used, invariably results in an increase in

the expected number of messages that are transmitted during

an exchange. The delay and overhead penalties are of course

smaller if the packet loss probability is small. This illustrates

the importance of proactive handover signaling that begins

well before the signal quality on the wireless link degrades

to the point where the packet loss probability is on the order

of 0.1 or greater. We also note that TCP is best suited for

longer MIH message exchanges since it will hold data until

there is enough to ﬁll a segment, which is undesirable for

messages that require low latency.

Our simulation results agreed with our mathematical model.

We observed low delays and less overhead in the case where

we used UDP, but we also experienced a higher rate of

failure for a MIH message exchange. TCP displayed a lower

exchange failure rate than UDP with retransmissions, largely

because the number of retransmissions over UDP was limited

while the number of TCP retransmissions was not. TCP’s

shortcoming was that it resulted in greater overhead than UDP

and performed inefﬁciently when the MIH message generation

rate was low. Our results show that using MIH retransmission

timers with TCP produces conﬂicts that severely degrade

performance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank the members of the IETF

MIPSHOP MIH design team for many helpful discussions,

especially Juan Carlos Z´ u˜ niga and Telemaco Melia.

REFERENCES

[1] D. Hong, Daehyoung and S.S. Rappaport, “Trafﬁc Model and Perfor-

mance Analysis for Cellular Mobile Radio Telephone Systems with

Prioritized and Nonprioritized Handoff Procedures,” IEEE Transactions

on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 77-92, Aug 1986.

[2] M. Sidi and D. Starobinski, “New Call Blocking versus Handoff Blocking

in Cellular Networks,” IEEE INFOCOM 96, pp. 35-42, Mar 1996.

[3] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, “Mobility Support in IPv6,” IETF

RFC 3775, Jun 2004.

[4] “Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6,” R. Koodli, Ed., IETF RFC 4068, Jul

2005.

[5] H. Soliman, C. Castelluccia, K. El Malki, and L. Bellier, “Hierarchical

Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6),” IETF RFC 4140, Aug

2005.

[6] “Draft IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:

Media Independent Handover Services,” IEEE LAN/MAN Draft IEEE

P802.21/D06.00, Jun 2007.

[7] “Mobility Services Transport: Problem Statement,” T. Melia, Ed., IETF

RFC 5164, Mar 2008.

[8] “Mobility Services Framework Design,” T. Melia, Ed., draft-ietf-mipshop-

mstp-solution-01, Feb 2008. IETF Internet Draft, work in progress.

[9] Abate, J. and Whitt, W., ”The Fourier-series method for inverting trans-

forms of probability distributions,” Queuing Systems, Vol. 10, pp. 5–88,

1992.

[10] A. Rahman, U. Olvera-Hernandez, J.C. Z´ u˜ niga, M. Watfa, and

H.W. Kim, “Transport of Media Independent Handover Messages over

IP,” draft-rahman-mipshop-mih-transport-03, Jul 2007. IETF Internet

Draft, work in progress.

[11] J. Padhye, V. Firoiu, D. Towsley, and J. Krusoe, “Modeling TCP

Throughput: A Simple Model and its Empirical Validation,” IEEE/ACM

Transactions on Networking, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 133–145, Apr 2000.

[12] N. Cardwell, S. Savage, T. Anderson, “Modeling TCP latency,” INFO-

COM 2000: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the

IEEE Computer and Communications Societies , Vol.3, pp. 1742–1751,

26-30 Mar 2000.

[13] M. Mellia, I. Stoica, and H. Zhang, “TCP Model for Short Lived Flows,”

IEEE Communications Letters, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 85–87, Feb 2002.

[14] National Institute of Standards and Technology. NS-2 Mobility Package.

http://www.antd.nist.gov/seamlessandsecure.shtml, Jul 2007.

2 Mobile Node (MN) τ1 τ1 + τ1 + τ1 + 2( 1 1 Mobility Manager (MM) MSG1. Each message in the exchange sequence is generated at time τi = τi−1 + i−1 + Di−1 + Tproc (i). we consider TCP. For the exchange of M messages to be successful. For the case of the ﬁrst message in the handover sequence. the delays will be correlated. at time τ2 = τ1 + 1 + D1 + Tproc (i). We use this simpliﬁcation because the total time to complete the exchange. To model the case where packet losses occur. The amount of time required to move the ith message out of the transmission buffer is i = Li /B s. We assume that the delays {Di }M +1 are independent ideni=1 tically distributed random variables with cumulative distribution function FD (t) and characteristic function ΦD (ω) = ∞ fD (t) exp(jωt)dt. each message must be received successfully. . not M + 1. is not affected by the amount of time spent sending MIH ACKs. The node that receives the ﬁrst MIH message immediately transmits an MIH ACK and. it arrives at its destination after some random delay that we denote as Di . MIH maintains a retransmission timer for each sent message. up to a limit of Ri retransmissions. M . If the ACK for the ith message is not received by the time the retransmission timer expires. TMIH (i). We assume that an MIH User that receives an MIH message immediately generates an MIH ACK followed by an MIH response message that constitutes the next part of the information exchange. Thus the probability that a message exchange fails is M Pfail = 1 − i=1 (1 − pRi +1 ).2 1 + TMIH (1)) ACK1. we assume independence to simplify the analysis. and the network transit time delay distribution. occurs. 1. we show results obtained using simulation tools that we developed that allow network planners to consider various of deployment scenarios. (1) where DM +1 is the time for the M th MIH message’s ACK to traverse the network. ΦH (ω). because we assume that the loss of the ﬁnal MIH ACK message will not prevent completion of the message exchange. (2) The product is taken over M messages. Sample signal ﬂow between MN and MM. 1. We denote the timer duration for the ith MIH message by TMIH (i). We assume that each . where fD (t) = dFD (t)/dt is the 0 density of D. The ith message traverses the network and.2 D1 τ2 MSG1.1 τ2 + Tproc (2) + ACK2.1 + TMIH (1) MSG1. and because the exchange’s state advances only when each of the two endpoints receives MIH messages. for i = 1. In Section II we consider the UDP transport where MIH uses ACKs and retransmission timers. in the course of this analysis. such as a handover signaling sequence. A sender will also re-transmit a message if the sum of the message’s transit time and the transit time of its corresponding ACK is greater than the timeout. II. we examine the effect of introducing MIH retransmission timers in addition to TCP’s recovery mechanisms.3 τ2 + Tproc (2) D2 τ3 MSG2. where Li is the length of the ﬁrst message in bits and B is the bandwidth of the channel in bits/s. We use simulation results to verify our models in Section IV. MIH S IGNALING OVER UDP We ﬁrst consider the case where the MIH User uses UDP to carry signaling messages. in which packet loss message size. The exchange of a message and ACK is successful with probability Ps = (1−p)2 . sends the second MIH message back to the node that initiated the message exchange. . MIH ensures reliability by requesting that each outgoing message be acknowledged by its recipient. This requires that at least one of Ri + 1 attempts to transmit the ith message be successful. let p be the probability that an MIH message or MIH ACK is lost while transiting the network. if it is not lost.1 2 t t Fig. and the exchange ﬁnishes when the MIH ACK for the M th MIH message is received. since the forward and reverse paths pass through the same network elements. 2. and examine some of the design trade-offs associated with the transport layer protocols. In Section III. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In addition. MIH over UDP Latency We can derive the distribution of the time required to complete an exchange of M MIH messages. The time between the generation of the ith ACK and the transmission of the subsequent (i + 1)th MIH message is a deterministic quantity that we denote as Tproc (i). In addition. . τ1 is the time when the message is generated. the characteristic function of the M +1 M handover delay. In this case. In the absence of packet loss. is ΦD (ω) exp jω i=1 [ i + Tproc (i)] . In practice. The probability that a series of message transmission attempts does not fail is 1 − pRi +1 . we show the MIH ACKs as requiring no time to transmit. We deﬁne τi to be the time when the (i − 1)th message in the handover message exchange is received. . In the ﬁgure. We summarize our results in Section V. H. The total time required to complete the exchange is H = τM + M + DM + DM +1 − τ1 M = DM +1 + i=1 Di + i + Tproc (i) . This reﬂects the amount of time used by the receiving node to perform any tasks associated with the arriving MIH message. A. MIH will send a new copy of the message.3 ACK1. We show an example message exchange between a mobile node (MN) and mobility manager (MM) in Fig.

The characteristic function of the additional delay ∆D associated with timeouts caused by losses of the ith MIH i message is therefore Φ∆D (ω) i = = 1−p 1 − pRi +1 Ri pk ejkωδi k=0 1 − p 1 − (pejωδi )Ri +1 . The probability that k transmission attempts fail to reach the destination prior to a ﬁnal.4) from [9]: FH (t) = FH (t) ≈ 2 ht + π π Nh Re[ΦH (kh)] k=1 sin(kht) . Ri . This does not add to the handover delay because the MM is already responding to the ﬁrst MIH message. We consider an example to illustrate our results. the i characteristic function for H is M ΦH (ω) = (ΦD (ω))M +1 ejω(TP +T M ) i=0 Φ∆D (ω). . which is unity. k (7) + TMIH (i) units of time to the total time required to complete the signaling for the handover. and are given as multiples of µD . Consider the ﬁrst message in the exchange. and h must be small enough to guarantee accuracy while not being so small that it results in rounding errors. and then computing 1 − FH (t). Decreasing the timeout duration to TMIH = 5µD produces the behavior shown in the red curve with squares. thus the probability that the ith message transmission is preceded by a delay of k · TMIH (i) is pk (1 − p)/(1 − pRi +1 ) for k = 0. then Equation (4) becomes ΦH (ω) = (1 − p)M (ΦD (ω))M +1 ejω(TP +T 1 − Pfail × (1 − (pejωδi )R+1 ) . The one-way transit delay is assumed to be exponential with an average value of 1 normalized unit of time. (1 − pejωδi ) i=0 M ) (5) where h is the step size for the summation on the ω-axis. At that time. We condition on the event that the message is successfully delivered during one of its allowed Ri + 1 transmission attempts. i (4) where TP = i=1 Tproc (i) is the total message processing time spent by both the connection endpoints. The value of 1−FH (t) at this plateau is two orders of magnitude below the plateau . 1 − pRi +1 1 − pejωδi (3) where the D superscript indicates that MIH is in datagram mode (i. and T = M i=1 i is the total time spent transmitting the messages that successfully reach their destinations. The performance curve has a staircase shape with plateaus that correspond to the packet loss probability and whose location on the time axis is determined by the MIH timeout. as shown in Fig. 1. Some plateauing is visible in this curve. We compute this probability by getting FH (t) = Pr{H ≤ t}. we can approximate this integral as follows. so that it is not possible for a message retransmission to arrive at the destination before a retransmission that was sent earlier. The number of retransmissions that are allowed for each message is R = 2. Each failure to send the ith message adds an additional δi i Because the characteristic function of H is the Fourier transform of the density fH (t). (6) π 0 ω Using the trapezoidal rule.01 and TMIH = 15µD . If the message is lost. We plot 1 − FH (t). up to a limit of R1 + 1 attempts in total. the cumulative distribution function of H. .4 of [10]. which is sin(ωt) 2 ∞ Re[ΦH (ω)] dω. If we decrease the packet loss probability to p = 10−4 while keeping the MIH timeout at TMIH = 15µD . successful attempt is pk (1 − p). 1 shows an MIH ACK being lost during the the ﬁrst message’s second transmission attempt. which is Equation (4. The effect of message retransmissions is most clearly visible in the black curve with diamonds that is associated with p = 0. and Nh is the number of points taken in the summation. we can use it to get any desired statistic for H.11 WLAN network to a cellular network. For the computations that we performed for this paper we found that h ≈ 5 × 10−3 radians/s and Nh = 2 × 104 produced good results. we obtain behavior shown by the curve with blue circles. we assume that the loss performance is independent of that of all the other messages. t. If the MIH User allows the same number of retransmissions for each message. which is much steeper and which does not exhibit the same plateau effect that can be seen in the curve associated with p = 0. The MIH timeout values for all three messages are the same for each case plotted in the ﬁgure. We can get the distribution function by inverting the characteristic function using Equation (3. The processing time associated with each message is assumed to be zero. which may be associated with a desired level of Quality of Service (QoS) for the MN. the expected value of D. 1. the sender will generate a second copy of the ﬁrst message. For instance. which was ﬁrst transmitted at time τ1 . .3 retransmitted message arrives after its preceding copy. . Each additional message that is lost will cause a timeout at the sender’s MIH User and a retransmission of the original message.6) from [9]. we consider the case described in Section 10. Fig. In Fig.01 and TMIH = 15µD . using UDP transport). the sender will not receive an MIH ACK and its MIH event timer will expire at time τ1 + 1 + TMIH (1). 2. For each of the M messages in the handover. Since the total exchange time H accounting for dropped M +1 M messages is H = i=1 Di + i=1 i + Tproc (i) + ∆D . Nh must be large enough to produce an accurate approximation. so that Ri = R for all i. in which a mobile node (MN) signals a remote mobility manager (MM) to perform a handover from an IEEE 802. the ﬁrst plateau is located at the same position on the time access as the ﬁrst plateau the same packet loss probability and the larger MIH timeout.e. the probability that the handover time exceeds a given time. we may want to know the probability that the exchange time exceeds some threshold t. Lost MIH ACKs also trigger retransmissions. The number of messages required to complete the handover is M = 3. for three cases in which the probability of packet loss and the MIH timeout duration vary.

i i=1 which are themselves mutually independent.T H MIH MIH MIH = 10µ =µ D D 10 −1 p = 10 . For the plots in the ﬁgure. and µ∆D is i µ∆D i = = 1 dΦ∆D (ω) i j dω ω=0 (1 − p)Ri + 1 Ri + 1 − δi . as TMIH (i) → 0. ω=0 Each of the variances of {∆D }M are: i i=1 2 σ∆D i = E{(∆D )2 } − µ2 D i ∆ i = = (−1) d2 Φ∆D (ω) i dω 2 ω=0 − µ2 D ∆ i (Ri + 1)2 pRi +1 2 p − δi . i (9) where µD is the expected one-way transit time. allows consistent handover performance over a wide range of MIH timeout values. setting the timeout interval to be too small will result in unnecessary generation of duplicate copies of messages. p −2 10 −1 10 0 Fig.01. 1−p 1 − pRi +1 2 2 where limp→1 σ∆D = (Ri + 2)Ri δi /12. The three curves in Fig. associated with the packet loss probability value of 0. Fig. 2. 2 (1 − p) (1 − pRi +1 )2 (12) (8) which we can evaluate in the case of Equation (4) as M µH = (M + 1)µD + TP + T + i=1 µ∆D . Probability that the handover time. We can quantify the overhead penalty associated with a particular set of values for the timeouts {TMIH (i)}M by computing i=1 the expected number of messages generated per attempted exchange. i We can use Eq. including initiating the handover before the message loss probability becomes too large. H 2 σH. Indeed. 2. T . for short and long MIH timeout values (TMIH = µD and TMIH = 10µD . (9)-(12) to plot the mean and variance of H for MIH signaling over UDP versus the p.4 10 0 10 p = 10−2. 3. setting the timeout interval to be on the order of the network delay will minimize the effect of packet loss on the handover delay. we used the network parameters given in Table I. Thus a proactive approach to handovers. MIH over UDP Overhead (10) As indicated by Fig. the value of TMIH does not have an impact on the statistics of H for p < 10−3 . 3.T 10 1 D D p = 10−4. A small packet loss probability will also eliminate the effect of retransmissions. time units 30 35 40 10 0 10 −4 −1 10 10 −5 10 −6 10 −2 10 −4 10 −3 10 Packet loss probability. Thus the variance of H is M 2 2 σH = (M + 1)σD + i=1 2 σ∆D . The expected value of H is µH = 1 dΦH (ω) j dω . T = 10µ D TMIH = µD 10 −3 Time. adding to the overhead associated with the handover. respectively). Assuming that there are retransmission opportunities remaining. T = 5µ µ . and are independent of the additional delays {∆D }M . T = 15µ 10 Pr{H > t } −2 H 2 σ . exceeds t seconds for three sets of values of packet loss probability p and MIH timeout. the probability of message loss. We can get the ﬁrst and second order moments of H from ΦH (ω). i (11) . T = 15µ D −2 2 µ . and the effect on µH is not noticeable for p < 10−2 . in Fig. However. H. the additional time required to complete a handover vanishes. the sending node will transmit an additional copy of a message if the previous copy is lost. The processing times and packet transmit times are deterministic. i Recall that the transit times {Di }M are mutually indepeni=1 dent. p. B. We let TMIH take values of µD and 10µD to show the effect of varying the MIH timeout. but we let µD = 100 ms. sec 0 5 10 15 20 25 t. Mean and variance of the handover time H versus packet loss probability. 2 demonstrate that the performance of MIH over UDP does not depend on the values of the retransmission timeout if the timeout period is on the order of the round-trip time between the MIH connection endpoints. For this set of network parameters. If the previous copy is where limp→1 µ∆D = Ri δi /2.

given that Ri retransmissions are allowed. the sending node will produce m copies with probability πm as deﬁned in Equation (14). particularly when the timeout is on the order of the average packet transit time across the network. if D is exponential with mean µD . p: 0. an ACK is generated by a node each time its MIH User receives an MIH message. . In the second case. As the packet loss probability increases to near unity. Ri R Prt i (i). (17) = (1 − p) To get the expected number of messages of both types sent during the exchange. and 10−6 in Fig. we sum ai over all messages {i} and combine the resulting expression with the expected number of MIH messages from Equation (16). a retransmission will take place if the corresponding MIH ACK is lost. For ease of computation. N → 2 i=1 (Ri + 1). 1 − Prt (i) R m−1 mPrt (i) + (Ri + 1)Prt i (i) (15) and the average total number of messages required for the exchange is M M N MSG = i=1 ni = i=1 R 1 − Prt i +1 (i) . For example. a retransmission will occur if the time from the message transmission to the ACK reception is greater than TMIH (i). the characteristic function of RTT is ΦRTT (ω) = (ΦD (ω))2 . and µD = 1. (13) connection with the ith message is Ri +1 m ai = m=1 πm k=0 Ri +1 m=1 m kpm−k (1 − p)k k mπm = (1 − p)ni . which happens when p → 1 or when TMIH (i) → 0. Ri +1 ni = m=1 mπm Ri = = (1 − Prt (i)) m=1 R 1 − Prt i +1 (i) . . (14) From this expression we can get the expected number of messages sent. m = Ri + 1. m = 1 m−1 Rm +1 Ri +1 p ). . 1 − (1 + t/µD )e−t/µD . t<0 t ≥ 0. however. accounting for the loss of all Ri +1 copies . ni → Ri + 1 as Prt (i) → 1. the cumulative distribution of RTT is FRTT (t) = 0. exchanges fail if all of the allowed number of transmission attempts at one of the stages result in the MIH message’s not reaching its destination.1. The curves in Fig. Thus the probability that the mth message is the last message in a given exchange is pR1 +1 . In general. so that all times are normalized to the average transit time. 2. m = 1. N = (2 − p) i=1 R 1 − Prt i +1 (i) . The probability that any one of these m copies is lost is p. In order to assess the load that the MIH Users collectively offer to the network. is πm = m−1 (1 − Prt (i))Prt (i). we see a signiﬁcant deviation in N . In these cases. Equivalently. if we let p → 1 we would obtain a horizontal line corresponding to N = M · R = 9. we assume that the RTT is the sum of two independent one-way transit times that each have the cumulative distribution FD (t). Thus the probability that a given message transmission attempt results in another copy of the message being sent is Prt (i) = p + (1 − p)[p + (1 − p)(1 − FRTT (TMIH (i)))] = (2 − p)p + (1 − p)2 [1 − FRTT (TMIH (i))] = 1 − (1 − p)2 FRTT (TMIH (i)).5. our treatment of the message exchange overhead has considered only those cases where the exchange completes successfully. 4. . The probability that all copies of the ith MIH message are lost is pRi +1 . 1 − Prt (i) (18) The probability that the sending node generates m copies of the ith message. the probability that k copies out of m are successfully received by the destination node is m Ck pm−k (1 − p)k .5 not lost. 0. giving M where FRTT (t) is the cumulative distribution of the message round-trip time. The resulting curves show that the average number of messages per exchange is insensitive to changes in p over a wide range of values for the MIH timeout. 1 < m < M χm = i=1 (1 − p M −1 (1 − pRi +1 ). Therefore the expected number of MIH ACKs that are generated in From Equation (15). If neither the message nor its ACK are lost. We can count those as well. m = M i=1 The expected number of MIH messages that are generated during an exchange. We ignore the ﬁrst case because the probability of the exchange failure is M 1. which is the maximum possible number of messages that can be generated. For the ith message in a M -message sequence. Thus ∞ FRTT (t) = 0 fD (u)FD (t − u)du where fD (t) is the density of D. We consider the example from Section II-A in which M = 3 and R = 2. at least one of the Ri + 1 transmission opportunities succeeds at each of the M stages of the exchange. we must consider the effect of transmissions associated with incomplete exchanges. 4 suggest that we can prevent the number of messages generated per exchange from being excessively large if we let the MIH timeout be at least two times larger than the measured packet transit time. RTT. and each copy results in an MIH ACK’s being sent back. 1 − Prt (i) (16) This expression does not account for the MIH ACKs that are generated each time a node receives an MIH message. Ri +1 copies of the ith message are generated for all i because the timer immediately expires after each message transmission. So far. We plot N for three values of the packet error probability.

If there is no packet loss. Conversely. We assume that there are no unacknowledged segments when the exchange begins. . M }. Our latency analysis considers the degenerate case in the model [12] in which the number of segments to be transferred at any time is one. are in use. we assume that the SYN/SYN-ACK exchange has already taken place during the start up of the MIH User. RTOmax = 2K RTO. . M } as well. the ﬁrst portion of the MIH message. the MIH message may not get sent until enough duplicate copies are put into the TCP transmit buffer to ﬁll a segment and trigger its transmission by TCP. [11] and the work that builds on it. TCP will not send the segment until enough bits have been put into the transmission buffer by the MIH User. depending on whether it is in Slow Start mode or Congestion Avoidance mode. . such as those associated with MIH signaling. This is because TCP is a stream-oriented protocol rather than a packet-oriented one. . instead. [12]. if the MIH message is larger than a segment. Here. . In particular. This mismatch will present problems with regard to completing a message exchange in a timely manner. which will be sent as soon as it is put into TCP’s transmit buffer. A TCP model for short-lived ﬂows. We can obtain a simpliﬁed version of this expression if we assume that Ri = R and TMIH (i) = TMIH for i ∈ {1. Then. the total number of MIH messages in the exchange is N = (2 − p)N MSG . We compute the performance metrics associated with a message exchange between MIH Users by using the techniques from Section II. If the MIH message is smaller than a TCP segment. the MIH message may not get sent at all. We consider the case of MIH over TCP. MIH allows TCP to be solely responsible for guaranteeing message reliability and does not use its own timeouts. . For this discussion.6 18 p = 5 × 10−1 Mean number of messages per handover 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 p = 10 p = 10 −1 −6 0 2 4 6 TMIH. the source node will continue to double its RTO value until it reaches a maximum. the destination node will generate an acknowledgment for the source node as soon as its TCP layer receives the source’s segment. 2. 4. Thus. . which is a connection-based. is M m N MSG = m=1 χm i=1 ni . a source node will not respond to a packet loss by going into Fast Retransmit/Fast Recovery mode. If MIH timeouts. TCP will automatically retransmit messages if its own retransmission timer expires or if it receives three duplicate acknowledgments from the destination node at the other endpoint of the connection. M }. . Therefore. up to an integer multiple of a segment length. In addition. If subsequent retransmitted messages are also lost. 2. was developed in [13] but does not incorporate a . A. Because we assume that the source node does not have any outstanding unacknowledged segments when it begins the exchange. it will wait until its retransmission timer expires. . we assume for the sake of tractability in the analysis that the size of each MIH message is equal to the size of the data payload of a TCP segment. (1 − Prt )pR+1 (19) Since ai = (1 − p)ni . the node initiating the message exchange will be able to transmit the ﬁrst message immediately. multiples of mean transit time 8 10 Fig. If MIH is not using timeouts. 2. The time to send each message is therefore s for all i ∈ {1. III. When this happens. 3. will get sent while the remainder of the message will remain in the TCP’s buffer until enough additional bits are generated by the MIH User to cause the segment to be transmitted. it will advance its own transmission window and possibly expand its congestion window. Mean number of messages generated by MIH signaling endpoints during an exchange where M = 3 and Ri = 2 for i = 1. where K is the maximum N MSG = = = (1 − q)n m=1 mq m−1 + M q M −1 n (1 − q M )n 1−q R+1 (1 − Prt )(1 − (1 − pR+1 )M ) . MIH S IGNALING OVER TCP MIH provides reliable transport over UDP by using internal timers to trigger retransmission of lost or excessively delayed messages. we get M −1 maximum retransmission timeout (RTO). . the source node will shrink its congestion window to one segment. have respectively characterized the loss and delay behavior of TCP during a steady-state bulk data transfer and during the transmission of an arbitrarily small amount of data. each segment contains exactly one MIH message. Prt (i) = Prt for i ∈ {1. . described in Section II. it will not receive any duplicate acknowledgments from the destination if the ﬁrst message is lost. 2. In practice. and double the RTO value. stream-oriented protocol that provides reliable transport of application data. There has been voluminous work on TCP behavior. Deﬁning R+1 1−Prt q 1 − pR+1 and n 1−Prt . an MIH message may not ﬁt exactly within a TCP segment. Because the TCP transmission window will be at least one segment long. of the ith message at any point in the exchange. retransmit the message. When the source node receives the acknowledgment. . MIH over TCP Latency In the absence of MIH timeouts.

and the MN’s TCP will send another copy if no ACK arrives by the time τi + 3 + 7TRTO . Our latency analysis is similar to our treatment of MIH over UDP from Section II. with each successive timeout and the lack of a limit on the number of retransmission attempts. However the TCP ACK is lost on the way back to the MN. We plot performance curves for the case where M = 3 in Fig. The expression for µH is nearly identical to Equation (9). H. 6. and number of RTO stages. it generates a response MIH message at time τi+1 + Tproc (i + 1). In the ﬁgure. We can use the characteristic function to obtain the expected value and the variance of the exchange time. 1−p (1 − p)(1 − 2p) (21) .3 Di τi+1 0 p = 10−4. RTO. the ith message in the message sequence. we observe the same plateau effects that we saw in the UDP case. exceeds t seconds for six sets of values of packet loss probability p. 2. Fig. K = 6 10 −3 MSGi+1.1 + ACK τi+1 + Tproc (i + 1) 10 −4 τi+2 τi + 3 + 7TRTO t ACKi+1. H. Thus the only change is a new expression for the additional time penalty imposed on the ith message in the message sequence.1 10 −5 t 10 −6 0 5 10 15 20 25 t. When the MN receives this message at time τi+2 . We assume that TCP will continue to send copies of the lost segment until it receives an acknowledgment from the destination endpoint. R = 2. This message is contained within a TCP segment whose header’s acknowledgment ﬁeld contains the byte number that follows the last byte of the ith message. R = 4. number of times that TCP doubles the RTO value. K = 6 p = 10 . after which the RTO expands to RTOmax . The lack of a TCP ACK causes the sending node’s TCP to retransmit the segment and double the RTO. For subsequent retransmissions (r > K). This segment is also lost. 5.2 −2 p = 10−4.2 MSGi. latency is minimized by using small timeouts and fewer backoff stages. so the MN’s TCP sends a second copy of the segment at time τi + 2 + 3TRTO and doubles the RTO interval again. the only change is replacing µ∆D with the expected value of ∆C . R = 2. 1 − pejω( +RTOmax ) (20) Inserting this expression into Equation (4) in place of Φ∆D (ω) i gives us the characteristic function for H. The ﬁrst retransmission attempt succeeds in the sense that the MM receives the message and begins preparing a response message.7 Mobile Node (MN) MSGi. Because the RTO doubles with each retransmission. 6. up to a maximum amount. K = 6 p = 10−4. they are most noticeable when the packet loss rate is high. Because the destination node receives the ﬁrst transmission of the MIH message at time τi+1 = τi + + Di . Sample MIH signal ﬂow between MN and MM when TCP transport is used and when some messages and TCP ACKs are lost in transit. The characteristic function of the extra delay ∆C caused by packet loss when i MIH is using TCP transport (i. . R = 2. K = 2 10 −1 p = 10−4. nor does it affect the processing times for each message at the MIH layer. Immediately after the rth retransmission attempt. which shows that. K = 6 p = 10 . Note that the use of TCP does not affect the time penalty associated with each successful transit. In addition. we can again get Pr{H > t} = 1 − FH (t) for various values of t. K = 6 −2 −2 10 Pr{H > t } τi + 2 + 3TRTO ACKi. the time when the rth retransmission occurs (given the ﬁrst transmission attempt occurred at time τi ) is τi +r +TRTO +2TRTO +· · ·+2r−1 TRTO = τi + r + (2r − 1)TRTO for r = 1.1 Mobility Manager (MM) 10 τi τi + + TRTO MSGi. K. We show an example of an MIH message transmission over TCP in Fig. Probability that the MIH message exchange time. . . which is transmitted at time τi . similar to the UDP case. R = 4. TCP expands the RTO to 2r TRTO . K. time units 30 35 40 Fig. By inverting ΦH (ω) to obtain FH (t) using Equation (6).e. the retransmission occurs at time τi + K + 2K TRTO − TRTO = τi + K + RTOmax − TRTO . . is lost in transit. At the Kth retransmission attempt. which we i i obtain from Equation (20) as follows: µ∆C = i (1 − p − 2K pK+1 )p p + TRTO . R = 1. the RTO remains at its maximum value and the rth retransmission occurs at time τi + r + (r − K + 1)RTOmax − TRTO . in connection mode) is thus Φ∆C (ω) i K = (1 − p) r=0 pr ejω[r ∞ +(2r −1)TRTO ] + (1 − p) r=K+1 K pr ejω[r pr ejω[r +(r−K+1)RTOmax −TRTO ] = (1 − p) r=0 +(2r −1)TRTO ] + (1 − p)pK+1 ejω[(K+1) +2RTOmax −TRTO ] . The principal differences lie in the exponential expansion of TCP’s timeout window. its TCP layer notes the acknowledgment and stops retransmission of the ith message. 5.

(11) with σ∆C replacing σ∆D . Note that the performance of UDP and TCP is identical for small values of p. We can also relate Equation (21) 1 to the expression for C1 (the mean time to send one segment with an initial congestion window size of one segment) in [13] by letting K → ∞. k ≤ K 1 − (1 − p)2 FRTT (RTOmax ). When TCP is used. Deﬁning psi 1 − (1 − p)2 FRTT (RTOmax ). 7. p −2 10 −1 10 0 Fig. As in the case of µ∆C .T 10 1 H 2 σ . 7. (25) (22) This quantity becomes undeﬁned when p = 1/2 or p = 1/4. µD and 10µD . (4p)K p(7−29p−4p3 +pK+2 −4pK+3 ) (1−p)2 (1−2p)2 (1−4p) B. for short and long TCP RTO values (TRTO = µD and TRTO = 10µD . RTOmax . −(2p)K p(2+K−3(K+1)p+2Kp2 ) p (1−p)2 (1−2p)2 TRTO the mean and variance of H increase without bound as p → 1. G(p) = 1 − 2p The cause of the additional factor of p is that Equation (18) gives the average duration of Z T O . Mean and variance of the handover time H versus packet loss probability. given that a timeout occurred. we can take limits and get i 2 lim σ∆C = i p→1/4 4 9 2(−5 + 9 · 2K ) − 3K TRTO 9 · 2K 4K (27K − 1) + 9 · 2K+1 − 1 2 + TRTO 9 · 4K+1 2 + (23) and p→1/2 2 lim σ∆C = 2 i 8 + 5K + K 2 TRTO 2 2(−9 + 13 · 2K ) − 8K − K 2 2 + TRTO . 3. which itself comes from [11]. p.T H RTO RTO RTO = 10µ =µ D D lim µ∆C i K+ 2 TRTO . We can use L’Hˆ pital’s Rule to get o p→1/2 10 2 µ . respectively). because we are computing the additional delay due to message losses. with an additional factor of p. using the same parameters that we used to generate Fig. the probability that the kth transmission attempt fails and requires another attempt is φk = 1 − (1 − p)2 FRTT (2k−1 TRTO ). by letting → 0 and observing that the general form of K Equation (19) from [12]. + − 1−p (1−2p)2 (1−4p) + (2p)K+1 (1−6p−(2K+4 −9)p2 −4p3 ) (1−p)2 (1−2p)2 (1−4p) 2 pTRTO + p 2 (1−p)2 . Similar to the UDP case. . G(p) = 1 + k=1 2k−1 pk .8 The second fraction assumes the indeterminate form 0/0 when p = 1/2. the occurrence of a timeout is not a given condition. (24) 4 2 + 2 We show plots of µH and σH in Fig. We can manipulate our Equation (21) to produce Equation (18). and that the value of p for which there is a noticeable 2 increase in the value of µH and σH is around the same for both the UDP and TCP transport cases. but this beneﬁt is less meaningful in the case of signaling for handovers. The gain from doing this is the eventual success of the transmission as long as p = 1. H 2 σH. However. T = 10µ D TRTO = µD Equation (21) is closely related to Equation (18) in [12]. so that degrading link conditions do not expand the amount of time required to successfully deliver signaling messages. We get the variance of i i C ∆i in the same way that we got Equation (12). Our Equation (21) gives the average time to transmit a segment in addition to the network transit delay. since their model assumes no upper bound on the RTO value. its TCP ACK is lost or the RTO timer expires before the sender receives the ACK. MIH over TCP overhead We also can compute the expected number of messages generated during a message exchange as a function of the RTO value TRTO and the packet loss probability. thus Z T O must be at least TRTO time units long. We assume that there is no limit on the number of times TCP attempts to retransmit a segment. the TCP timeout period. we have to account for the exponential dilation of the timeout interval until it reaches its ﬁnal value. where we assume that TRTO is the same for all M messages in the message sequence. sec µ . and so ∆C i has a minimum value of zero. this ﬁgure demonstrates the importance of beginning critical handover signaling exchanges early. which gives us a more complex but still closed-form expression: 2 σ∆C = 2 (1−p) i 2 10 0 10 −1 10 −2 10 −4 10 −3 10 Packet loss probability. The probability that m copies of the ith message gets sent is the probability that the TCP ACK for the mth transmitted copy of the MIH message arrives within the time limit after m − 1 failures. The variance of H when MIH messages use TCP is given 2 2 by Eq. p. can be written as 1 − p − 2K pK+1 . Again. similar to Equation (13). because the amount of time available to complete message delivery is short. Here we consider two values of the TCP RTO value. = + 2 Time. because TCP attempts to deliver an unacknowledged segment until it receives an ACK. k > K. retransmission of an MIH message occurs if the message is lost. The expression in [13] has an additional factor of p as well. Thus.

we know that τ2 − τ1 = D1 + ∆C . An important difference is the asymptote at RTO = 0. In addition to the MIH messages. There are two cases involving the relative values of the MIH timeout TMIH and the TCP timeout. µD . the set of positive integers. The handover exchange is composed of M = 3 MIH messages where TCP is used for transport and there are no timeouts and retransmissions at the MIH User. φk = ψ for k > K) we have 1 − φ1 . The MIH/TCP case is similar to the MIH/UDP case in that reducing the timeout to be on the order of the network round-trip time signiﬁcantly increases N in both cases. Because the retransmission parameters do not change from message to message. and the total number of messages created in connection with the ith phase of the exchange is (2 − p)ni . This exchange involves one MIH message and one MIH ACK. 4. where n is given in Equation (27). for various RTO values. resulting in unnecessary extra trafﬁc. The MIH layer will produce m additional copies of the 1st message. it follows that the probability of exactly R1 retransmissions is the probability that U1 is greater than R1 TMIH (1).e. 8. ni is a constant. The probability of this event is Pr{U1 ∈ mTMIH (1). and the mean total number of messages sent during an exchange is N = (2 − p)M n. k out of m segments generated by a source will arrive at their destination (and cause ACKs to be sent back) with probability m−k (1−p)k .9 Mean number of messages per handover (i. We consider only the case where the MIH timeout occurs later than the initial value of the TCP RTO (TMIH ≥ TRTO ). we present an analytical model that quantiﬁes some of the negative effects that result from combining the TCP layer and MIH User retransmission mechanisms. C. Letting the MIH timeout occur before the RTO would introduce additional copies of the message into the TCP queue before TCP has a chance to time out and retransmit. which is 1 − FTM (R1 TMIH (1)). R1 . In this situation. 0 ≤ m ≤ R1 . lies in the half-open interval mTMIH (1). From our analysis in Section III. In Fig. U1 . Thus the expected number of ACKs is (1− m Ck p p)ni . 1 < m ≤ K πm = K (1 − ψ)(ψ)m−K−1 k=1 φk . Our model examines the case of an MIH Indication message transmission from a MN to the MM. The number of messages that the MIH User generates depends on the amount of time that TCP spends in Timeout retransmitting the original copy of the message. We ﬁrst examine the Request message from the MN to the MM. m = 1 m−1 (1 − φm ) k=1 φk . multiples of mean transit time 8 10 p = 5 × 10−1 p = 10 p = 10 −1 −6 (26) for m ∈ Z+ . the connection endpoints generate TCP ACKs every time they receive a TCP segment. if the time from the ﬁrst message transmission attempt until the TCP layer receives an ACK. (m+1)TMIH (1) . the MIH User’s timeout occurs after the TCP RTO. but this is a TCP function that is not controllable by the MIH User. so we have already characterized the random 1 . In contrast. we plot the average number of messages in a handover versus RTO. so the MIH layer will not begin generating duplicate messages until TCP has been in Timeout mode for some period of time. m > K 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 0 2 4 6 RTO. The MIH User generates an MIH ACK message for each MIH message that it receives. = 1 − φ1 + m=2 m(1 − φm ) k=1 K φk (27) + 1 + K(1 − ψ) 1−ψ φk . for a total of two messages generated jointly by both nodes’ MIH Users. Using this expression we can get the mean number of copies sent for a given message: ∞ ni = m=1 mπm K m−1 = 1 − φ1 + m=2 ∞ m(1 − φm ) k=1 φk K + m=K+1 m(1 − ψ)(ψ)m−K−1 k=1 K m−1 φk Fig. TRTO . The ﬁgure bears a strong resemblance to Fig. Mean number of messages generated by MIH signaling endpoints using TCP transport during a handover where M = 3 and K = 6. The Effect of Combining MIH Timeouts with TCP In this subsection. k=1 As was the case with MIH transport over UDP. which plots N versus the MIH timeout for the MIH/UDP case. (28) Because MIH is limited to a ﬁnite number of retransmissions. MIH is limited to a ﬁnite number of retransmission attempts when it uses UDP. Thus a conservative RTO estimate reduces overhead. which is due to our assumption that TCP never stops trying to send an un-ACKd segment. where the RTO is expressed as multiples of the average one-way network transit time. (m + 1)TMIH (1) } (m+1)TMIH (1) = mTMIH (1) fU1 (u) du = FU1 ((m + 1)TMIH (1)) − FU1 (mTMIH (1)). 8.

Because of this. we show the exchange of messages between the MN and MM when MIH reliability mechanisms (ACKs and retransmissions) are used in addition to TCP. The delay experienced by the MIH ACK is D1. the characteristic function for ∆C 1. There are two ways the MN can get a TCP ACK from the MM.ACK . We next get the characteristic function of U1 . the MM will send the 2nd MIH message before the RTO expires. this assumes that the MM’s TCP uses delayed ACKs. In this case. the additional time required to send the MIH ACK for MSG1 from the MM to the MN. when Tproc (2) ≤ TRTO . the MN’s TCP immediately responds with a 40-byte TCP ACK. and when Tproc (2) > TRTO . Recalling that the maximum RTO is RTOmax = 2K TRTO . we see that ∆C 1.ACK ∆C 1 D1 Mobility Manager (MM) time from the ﬁrst transmission attempt to the segment’s successful reception at the MM. so ∆C + TRTO with probability (1 − p)p2 . the MM’s MIH layer sends an MIH ACK to the MN whose TCP header contains the sequence number of the last octet in MSG1 . TCP will continue normal operations. and the MM’s TCP transmission window is at least two segments long. We assume that all MIH messages and MIH ACKs have the same transmission duration of units of time. 1. We compute the characteristic function for ∆C 1. and begin retransmitting the MIH ACK while the 2nd MIH message waits in the transmission queue. (9). Immediately upon receiving MSG1 . 2. 9. Failed transmission attempts by the MM’s TCP cause an additional delay of ∆C 1. If Tproc (2) ≥ TRTO and the MIH ACK gets lost in transit. The MM’s TCP will behave exactly like the MN’s TCP. Like [12]. There is an additional time penalty of ∆C units associated with failed 1 attempts by the MN’s TCP to transmit MSG1 . the message will go into the transmission queue until the MM’s TCP receives an ACK.ACK . The MN can also receive a TCP ACK in the header of the next MIH message in the handover sequence.ACK takes the values 0 and Tproc (2) with probabilities (1−p) and (1−p)p.ACK also has characteristic function ΦD (ω).ACK = . respectively.ACK . .ACK If Tproc (2) ≤ TRTO . There are two possibilities. K. 1 1. If the ACK is received before TRTO units of time have expired. Mobile Node (MN) τ1 lost MSG1 copies MSG1 MSG1 ACK U1 MSG2 add’l lost MSG1 ACKs MSG1 ACK TCP ACK τ2 τ2 + Tproc (2) τ2 + TRTO Mobility Manager (MM) t t Fig. If the MN receives the ACK after TCP has gone into timeout. RTOmax = 2K TRTO .ACK D1. TCP will end the timeout and begin Slow Start. ∆C 1.ACK 2 D1. as long as the MM’s transmission window is large enough to send both the MIH ACK and the second MIH message. . as shown in Fig. The MN can receive a TCP ACK in the header of the MIH ACK that the MM’s MIH User generates when it receives the MN’s MIH message. If no ACK comes back from the MN by the time t = τ2 + TRTO .ACK t t Fig. Signal ﬂow for an exchange of an MIH message and MIH ACK message between MN and MM over TCP. we assume that TCP ACKs are never lost in transit. where D1. 1.ACK = Continuing this pattern and using the results of our analysis r in Section III. The MN has two chances to receive a segment containing an ACK for the 1st MIH message and send an ACK back to the MM. the local TCP will note that the transmitted segment was correctly received.ACK changes slightly from its form in Equation (20). as D1 . . for r = 1. the MM’s TCP will enter timeout. which has the same characteristic function. 10.ACK = r + (2 − 1)TRTO with r+1 probability (1−p)p . (29) where Φ∆C (ω) is given by Equation (20). we see that ∆C 1. The ﬁrst retransmission of the MIH ACK happens at time t = τ2 + + TRTO if no ACK is received for either the MIH ACK or the 2nd MIH message. Signal ﬂow for an exchange of an MIH message and MIH ACK message between MN and MM over TCP. when Tproc (2) > TRTO . we show the case where both the MM’s MIH ACK and MSG2 transmissions fail. . shrink its congestion window to one segment. retransmitting the MIH ACK’s segment and expanding the RTO at each attempt until it reaches its maximum value.ACK time units. its characteristic function is ΦD (ω)Φ∆C (ω). When any one of these packets ﬁrst arrives at the MN. From Fig. When the MIH ACK ﬁnally arrives at the MN. ΦU1 (ω) = ΦD (ω) Φ∆C (ω)Φ∆C (ω)ej2ω . The 1st MIH message travels from the MN to the MM and is delayed by D1 units of time. ΦD (ω). So the MM will have one attempt to send the 2nd MIH message before its TCP goes into timeout. In Fig. 1 the time from the 1st message’s reception at the MM to the arrival of a TCP ACK at the MN. depending on whether Tproc (2) is larger than TRTO .10 Mobile Node (MN) τ1 lost MSG1 copies MSG1 U1 lost MSG1 ACKs MSG1 ACK TCP ACK τ2 ∆C 1. In the ﬁgure. as we now show. the MM’s TCP will time out before the 2nd MIH message is ready to be sent. 9. which reaches the MM after a delay of D1. 10.

B is insensitive to p for p < 0. . T RTO RTO RTO = 200 ms = 200 ms = 200 ms TMIH =150 msec. IV.ACK With the characteristic function ΦU1 (ω) in hand. Thus we obtain the following expression for the characteristic function when Tproc (2) < TRTO : Φ∆C (ω) 1. the small TRTO curves are ﬂatter and begin increasing toward R at a larger value of p.5 (1 − p)[1 + pe +(1 − p) + (1 − p)p ] +(2r −1)TRTO ] 0 −2 10 10 p −1 pr+1 ejω[r e 1 − pejω( 10 0 r=1 K+2 jω[(K+1) +2RTOmax −TRTO ] +RTOmax ) . TRTO = 2 ms 2 TMIH =200 msec. 1. the probability of message loss for different values of the MIH timeout. 12 that consists of a mobility manager located at a remote Point of Service (PoS) connected to an access point via a backbone network that we have abstracted as a single router and a lossy link.ACK = (1 − p) + (1 − p)pejωTproc (2) K 3 T T 2. Computing B using different values for Tproc does not result in a signiﬁcant change in the curves.5 second. . 1. T =200 msec. 2. S IMULATION R ESULTS To further quantify the performance of the MIH User over different transport layers. thus reducing the backlog. This is because decreasing TRTO = 200 increases the TCP retransmission rate and it becomes more likely that a TCP ACK will arrive at the MN before the MIH timeout expires. In each scenario that we considered. Then. Within the coverage area of the access point is a single mobile node that communicates with the access point over a IEEE 802. TRTO = 2 ms TMIH =400 msec. 200 ms. TMIH . the average size of the message backlog generated by MIH retransmissions due to expiration of the MIH timer. we can work out the characteristic function of U1 by conditioning on the whether MSG2 is lost in transit. depending on whether we are simulating Indications or Request/Response exchanges. TRTO = 2 ms 1. as follows: ΦU1 (ω) = (1 − p) ΦD (ω) Φ∆C (ω)Φ∆C (ω)e 1 1. TMIH : 150 ms.5 B +(1 − p) + (1 − p) = pr+1 ejω[r r=1 ∞ +(2r −1)TRTO ] pr+1 ejω[r r=K+1 jωTproc (2) K +(r−K+1)RTOmax −TRTO ] 1 0.5 T MIH MIH MIH =150 msec. 1 where Φ∆C (ω) is given by Equation (30). (10).01. Thus the average number of MIH messages put into the TCP transmission queue for each MIH message that the MIH User needs to send is the original message plus the ones in the backlog. Using Equation (28) and the inversion formula in Equation (6). π 0 ω (32) 2 2 +Tproc (2)) 2 j2ω Fig. we get β(m) Pr{m messages in backlog}: = Pr{mTMIH (1) ≤ U1 < (m + 1)TMIH (1)} = FU1 (m + 1)TMIH (1) − FU1 mTMIH (1) 2 ∞ Re[ΦU1 (ω)] sin (m + 1)ωTMIH (1) = π 0 dω − sin mωTMIH (1) (31) ω for m = 0. . we can get an estimate of the MIH overhead by computing the size of the backlog of copies of the MIH Indication message at the MN at the time the MN receives a TCP ACK for the MIH Request message. or 1 + B.11 wireless LAN link.5 second or the PoS generates requests every 0. The ﬁgure also shows that increasing the MIH timeout reduces the size of the backlog. including TRTO = 200 ms. We used the set of parameters shown in Table I. we used a simple network topology shown in Fig. we also used TRTO = 2 ms to show the effect of increasing the TCP retransmission rate. . Note that using a smaller value of TRTO produce curves that have the same value for small values of p as the curves where TRTO = 200 ms. the MN generates Indications every 0. although it will increase the TCP segment transmission rate. (30) From Fig. and 400 ms.ACK + p ΦD (ω) Φ∆C (ω)ejω(2 1 = × ΦD (ω) Φ∆C (ω)ej2ω .ACK of the MIH timeout. we performed a set of simulations using the ns-2 tool.11 r + (r − K + 1)RTOmax − TRTO with probability (1 − p)pr+1 for r ≥ K. respectively. which we enhanced by extending the tool’s mobility framework [14]. we we plot the average backlog size versus p. Plot of B. (1 − p)Φ∆C (ω) + pejωTproc (2) 1. R1 − 1 and β(m) β(R1 ) = Pr{U1 > R1 TMIH (1)} = 1 − FU1 R1 TMIH (1) 2 ∞ dω = 1− Re[ΦU1 (ω)] sin ωR1 TMIH (1) . For all three values of TMIH and for TRTO = 200 ms. 11. T =400 msec. 11. the MN ﬁrst connects to the AP and registers with the PoS. versus p. In Fig. We take performance measurements by taking traces of the relevant output parameters and averaging those traces over The expected number of messages in the backlog is B = R1 m=0 mβ(m). the probability of MIH message loss for three different values . To generate our results.

11 Data rate (Mb/s) 11Mb/s Coverage area radius (m) 50 Links Speed (Mb/s) 100 Delay (s) 0. The graph further shows that the probability that a message exchange is unable to complete successfully decreases as the number of the packets in the exchange increases. 0.75.2 Max retransmission Unlimited Queue size Unlimited Header size (bytes) 20 IP header IPv6 header (bytes) 40 MIH Function Transaction timeout (s) none Ri 2 Tproc (2) (s) 0. 14 we plot the average time required to complete the simple Indication transmission as well as the Request/Response message exchange. In the ﬁgure. we examine the delay performance of MIH over both UDP and TCP transport layers.5.5 s for Indications and TMIH = 0. In Fig. we obtained excellent agreement between the values predicted by the model and the results that we obtained from the simulations. The parameters that we used in our simulations are shown in Table I. the sets of parameters that we used are indicated in the legend appearing in the ﬁgure. In all the scenarios that we considered. 0. We examine the delay with MIH acknowledgment messages and retransmissions (for which TMIH = 0.3. We compare the results from ns-2 with theoretical results that we obtained by computing 1 − Pfail from Equation (2). Network topology used in simulations of Indication and Request/Response MIH message exchanges. The ﬁrst type consists of a Indication message sent by the mobile node to the mobility manager. 13. We used a variety of values for the TCP maximum RTO. In addition.5. as shown in the table. 12. 0.3 s for Request/Response) and without.01 UDP Max packet size (byte) 1000 Header size (bytes) 8 TCP Max Segment Size (bytes) 1280 Min RTO (s) 0. We plot values for the probability that MIH transaction completes successfully in Fig. The typical standard deviation of the data in each of the graphs in this section is on the order of 1% of the mean data value plotted. 50%] RTOmax (s) 0. i. Both types of MIH message exchanges occur according to a Poisson process with an average exchange arrival rate of two events per second.12 TABLE I S IMULATION PARAMETERS IEEE 802. using MIH acknowledgments signiﬁcantly increased the success rate. ﬁgures in this subsection. MIH Delay In this subsection. A. the upper terminus of a bar is located at a value one standard deviation greater than the corresponding mean. between the 5 s and 4005 s marks. rather they show the value of the standard deviation of the completion time. The bars in the ﬁgure do not show the variance of the simulation data. Two different transport layers were used in the simulations: UDP and TCP. and varied the link loss rate for each maximum RTO value that we used. thus error bars would not be visible and so are not plotted. Theoretical and simulated values for MIH transaction completion probability. The packet loss rate on the link connecting the router to the access point was allowed to vary between 0 and 0. 4000 seconds of simulation time. The second type of exchange involves a Request message generated by the mobility manager which produces a Response message from the mobile node. The parameters for both transport layers are given in Table I. p variable [0.e.2. 1 Indications/s 2 Requests/s 2 MIH Packet size (bytes) 200 Fig.2 Simulation conﬁguration Duration (s) 6005 loss probability. there are two sets of horizontal marks that corre- . Each simulation run covered a time interval of 6005 seconds. as we would expect. In all of the Fig. The simulations examined two types of MIH message exchanges. 13.

Thus.13 Fig. We observe that the exchange completion time decreases when the packet loss reaches 45% for larger values of RTOmax . 14. we see that the average completion time is much higher in the case of TCP. the message exchange will fail unless the initial attempt to transmit each MIH message is successful. the MIH User sends a Request and waits for a Response. the transaction delay for a given maximum RTO value is approximately 2. These duplicate packets cause additional delays because all of them must be transmitted and acknowledged before the next MIH Indication message can be sent. If we compare the average delay to what we observed in connection with UDP. 15. We have an average delay of 20 ms and 240 ms for the Indication and Request/Response exchanges. To further show the negative effect of combining MIH retransmissions with TCP’s reliable delivery. Thus the delay shown in the ﬁgure is associated only with the minority of successful exchanges. 18 we show the average Request/Response completion time when MIH retransmission are not being used over TCP. The delay curves also show strong agreement between the simulation results and the mathematical model’s prediction from Equation (9) and Equation (10). In addition. 16. 16. The MIH timeout TMIH is set to 3RTOmax .25 times greater than it is in the case when only a Indication message is being transmitted. especially for small values of p. the Responses received are always considered valid although that might not be the case in real implementations. using MIH ACKs over TCP further increases the average delay. 15 we show simulation results showing the mean message exchange time for Indications when TCP is used in addition to MIH ACKs and timeouts. Mean MIH Indication transaction completion time over TCP transport with MIH timeouts and acknowledgments. Theoretical and simulation values of mean MIH handover time for MIH handovers where M = 1 (Indication) and M = 2 (Request/Response) over UDP. in this case. spond to the scenarios in which MIH Indications and MIH Request/Response exchanges take place without the use of MIH ACKs. In our scenario. respectively. This is because the delays at this level of packet loss are so large and most Request/Response transactions do not complete within the ACK timeout interval. largely because the TCP transmission queue is no longer being ﬁlled with extra copies of messages that were lost during transmission attempts. 17. In Fig. using TCP results in a much lower probability that a given exchange will fail. In Fig. As we expect. 15. We also show simulation results showing the mean transaction completion time for Request/Response exchanges when TCP is used in addition to MIH ACKs and timeouts in Fig. TCP transport without MIH reliability features in Fig. If no MIH ACK is used. Mean MIH Request/Response transaction completion time over TCP transport with MIH timeouts and acknowledgments. In both cases. The ﬁgure does not exhibit the type of severe performance degradation that we observed in Fig. are very small. as . However. the only variance in the exchange completion time comes from random delays in the network which. When MIH ACKs are used and the average TCP roundtrip delay is greater than the MIH retransmission timeout interval. we plot the average Indication completion time for the case where we use Fig. MIH will create duplicate packets that go into the TCP queue. The ﬁgure shows much greater sensitivity to the packet loss probability as the transaction delay increases exponentially with respect to the value of TRTO . Fig.

we examine the amount of overhead associated with the various transport layer options. C ONCLUSIONS In this paper. When there is no packet loss (p = 0). if the TCP delay is too large. If MIH reliability is not in use. Fig. In Fig. as seen in Fig. 20.5 since there are at most 3 Requests. MIH Overhead In this subsection. 21. In the case of Request/Response exchanges. 17. If retransmissions by the MIH layer are turned off. which will in turn create another Request. If we examine both graphs. The maximum number of packets for each MIH Indication is therefore 6 (3 copies of the message and 3 corresponding MIH ACKs). As the packet loss rate increases.1. With MIH acknowledgments and retransmissions. Note that in all four ﬁgures we do not begin to see serious increases in the delay for either type of message exchange until the packet loss probability is on the order of 0. Mean MIH Request/Response transaction completion time over TCP transport without MIH timeouts and acknowledgments. 20 and Fig. which shows that increasing M . an MIH ACK message gets sent for each indication/request/response that a node receives. V. the MIH User will retransmit messages up to two times. Fig.25. there is no overhead penalty although this will result in a lower success rate for both types of exchanges. we developed characteristic functions that let us obtain the distribution and moments of the time to exchange an arbitrary number of MIH messages using either UDP with MIH retransmissions and acknowledgments or using . Requests will arrive late at the MN. we observe that the amount of overhead increases as we decrease the maximum RTO. 3 ACKs. Theoretical and simulation values of MIH overhead for Indication and Request/Response exchanges over UDP. Also.5 are an indication that a greater number of transactions are able to successfully complete within the time limit than we observed when we used MIH reliability features in conjunction with TCP. 18.14 Fig. and 3 Responses for each Request/Response pair. 19. signiﬁcant increases in overhead to not occur until the packet loss probability exceeds 0. 19 we plot theoretical and simulation results for transport over UDP for both the Indication and Request/Response exchanges. This follows from Equation (19). we observed a slightly higher overhead penalty in connection with Indication exchanges relative to the Request/Response case. decreases N MSG . with N MSG → n/(1 − q) as M becomes large. The maximum overhead is 4. Therefore the minimum number of MIH packets sent per message is two if MIH ACKs are being used. the number of messages in an exchange. we plot the expected number of MIH packets sent to the transport layer per MIH message generated by the MIH User for Indications and Request/Response exchanges. whose Response will be ignored by the PoS. and a maximum error of 7% for the Request/Response exchange when p = 0. We observed very close agreement between the theoretical and simulation results for the Indication exchange. shown in Fig. which is what we would expect. the large average delay values associated with packet loss rates of near 0. respectively. this number is 1. 17. Next we examine overhead associated with using TCP transport. B. Mean MIH Indication transaction completion time over TCP transport without MIH timeouts and acknowledgments. Furthermore. In Fig.1.

We also note that TCP is best suited for longer MIH message exchanges since it will hold data until there is enough to ﬁll a segment. Towsley.” T. [12] N. Krusoe. 35-42. “Modeling TCP latency.. Jun 2007. C. Hong. 35.” draft-rahman-mipshop-mih-transport-03. Aug 1986. [2] M.21/D06.shtml. Sidi and D. [8] “Mobility Services Framework Design. and J. 5–88.gov/seamlessandsecure. IETF Internet Draft. and Whitt. [5] H. [3] D. “Trafﬁc Model and Performance Analysis for Cellular Mobile Radio Telephone Systems with Prioritized and Nonprioritized Handoff Procedures. pp. Vol. 1742–1751. Our results verify that there is a tradeoff between latency and overhead. IETF Internet Draft. Jul 2007. NS-2 Mobility Package. I. V.. pp. Arkko.” IEEE LAN/MAN Draft IEEE P802. Firoiu. W.. whether in the MIH User if UDP is being used or at the transport layer if TCP is being used. Daehyoung and S. Mellia. [9] Abate. Our simulation results agreed with our mathematical model.” R. Feb 2008. The delay and overhead penalties are of course smaller if the packet loss probability is small. Ed. and J.” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. work in progress. Jul 2007. Apr 2000.1 or greater. K. Padhye.nist. no. Simulation values of MIH overhead for Request/Response exchanges over TCP with MIH ACKs. u˜ R EFERENCES Fig. 3. Rappaport. Zhang. 2. Koodli. Vol. No. Adjusting timeout values to reduce latency. “Transport of Media Independent Handover Messages over IP. 21. but we also experienced a higher rate of . 133–145. “Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6). which is undesirable for messages that require low latency. Simulation values of MIH overhead for Indication messages over TCP with MIH ACKs. 77-92. and H.antd. pp. Mar 1996. especially Juan Carlos Z´ niga and Telemaco Melia. [6] “Draft IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Media Independent Handover Services. Vol. [14] National Institute of Standards and Technology.15 failure for a MIH message exchange. Watfa. 20. Mar 2008. U. 1992. Feb 2002. D.” IETF RFC 3775. TCP. invariably results in an increase in the expected number of messages that are transmitted during an exchange. Ed. Castelluccia. J. 10.S.W. and L. Ed. TCP’s shortcoming was that it resulted in greater overhead than UDP and performed inefﬁciently when the MIH message generation rate was low. This illustrates the importance of proactive handover signaling that begins well before the signal quality on the wireless link degrades to the point where the packet loss probability is on the order of 0. “Modeling TCP Throughput: A Simple Model and its Empirical Validation. [7] “Mobility Services Transport: Problem Statement. Savage.3. pp. ”The Fourier-series method for inverting transforms of probability distributions. “New Call Blocking versus Handoff Blocking in Cellular Networks. [1] D. Our results show that using MIH retransmission timers with TCP produces conﬂicts that severely degrade performance. M.C. We observed low delays and less overhead in the case where we used UDP. We also developed expressions for the average overhead expressed as extra message transmissions due to packet losses. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank the members of the IETF MIPSHOP MIH design team for many helpful discussions. Stoica. Aug 2005. pp.” IEEE Communications Letters. [4] “Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6. [13] M.” IEEE INFOCOM 96. [10] A. “TCP Model for Short Lived Flows. 8. draft-ietf-mipshopmstp-solution-01. Z´ niga. Fig. TCP displayed a lower exchange failure rate than UDP with retransmissions. El Malki. No. Melia.” INFOCOM 2000: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies .” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.” IETF RFC 4140. “Mobility Support in IPv6. [11] J. pp.. Cardwell. Vol. Vol. Kim. http://www. Jul 2005. C. Bellier. Perkins. S. Rahman. T.” T. and u˜ H. 85–87. Johnson. work in progress. 6. Olvera-Hernandez. Anderson. 26-30 Mar 2000. IETF RFC 5164. Jun 2004. Melia. Starobinski.” Queuing Systems. IETF RFC 4068. 2. Soliman.00. J. largely because the number of retransmissions over UDP was limited while the number of TCP retransmissions was not.

Adding New Packets

Notes

Installation Steps NS2

Vb Sample Code

Ns2 Trace Formats

Adding new Protocol to ns2

Ns2 Some Details Flooding Routing

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->