UMTS and LTE/SAE handover solutions and their comparison

T.F.M. Hendrixen Faculty of Management and Governance University of Twente, the Netherlands t.f.m.hendrixen@student.utwente.nl ABSTRACT
Handovers are procedures used to keep one or more communicating connection(s) of a mobile user alive, even when the user roams from one network access point to another access point. Handovers are therefore, very important for mobility support in wireless networks. This paper focuses on the efficiency of handovers between UMTS and the new 3GPP network technology LTE. The paper first explains the important requirements for efficient handovers. Once the requirements are clear, five possible handover solutions are explained. To verify if all solutions are efficient they are compared to the requirements. technology available at that moment, see [5]. Because handover mechanisms arent a new way of keeping connections alive, several mechanisms have already been researched and developed. Some of these mechanisms are also used between UMTS and LTE, but are these proposed handovers efficient? Is there a better way to provide handovers between UMTS and LTE? This brings us to the main research question of this paper: Are the handover solutions supported in UMTS and LTE/SAE efficient?

To answer this main research question, sub questions are derived: 1. 2. 3. How do handover mechanisms work? What are requirements for an efficient handover? What handover solutions are used between LTE/SAE and UMTS? Do the handover solutions comply with the requirements for handover efficiency?

KEYWORDS
LTE/SAE, UMTS, handover, efficiency

1. INTRODUCTION
The demand for mobile internet increases every day. To keep up with user preferences, several types of networks are available and implemented. All these different networks have their own properties such as bandwidth, response time and coverage area. But due to developments in applications and services, larger bandwidths, lower latency, always alive connections, etc., are needed. To accommodate these needs, new better networks are being specified and developed. Nowadays to provide mobile internet Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) / High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSPDA) technologies are used. At the same time the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is developing a new technology called 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE). 3GPP LTE aims to improve third generation (UMTS) technology to meet requirements in a time perspective of 2010 and beyond, see [1] [2] [3]. Some of the agreed requirements/targets of LTE are a significant increase in peak data rates (100 Mbps down and 50 Mbps up); a scalable bandwidth and a reduced latency for the user [4]. Examples of applications that are used by mobile users are video conferencing, email, messaging and even live TV. For most of these applications mobile users desire that their connections are maintained as their devices move from one access point to another. To provide this service handover mechanisms are used between access points [1]. To integrate a new technology like 3GPP LTE with the already available networks, vertical handover mechanisms have to be used. These mechanisms maintain network (internet) connectivity for the mobile user and switch to the best suitable
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission.

4.

A literature study and a qualitative comparison analysis is used in order to answer these research questions. The paper is divided into sections, where each section answers a research question. In section 2 available handover concepts are explained. In section 3 the requirements for efficient handovers are discussed. Section 4 treats the solutions that might be or are used between UMTS and LTE. In section 5 the solutions are compared with the derived requirements. Finally, the conclusions and the possible future work activities are presented.

2. HANDOVER MECHANISMS
As explained earlier, handovers are used to keep mobile clients connected to their service network, even when these clients roam from a network access point to another network access point. To supply this service there are two types of handovers, horizontal and vertical. For example: a mobile user is having a video phone call, which uses UMTS, while traveling by train. During the trip, the train moves out of the range of the currently used UMTS network access point, i.e., UMTS cell coverage area. To maintain the phone call, the phone switches from one UMTS network access point to another UMTS network access point, with a better signal quality. The type of handover used in this case is called a horizontal handover, since the handover occurs and is supported by the same wireless technology, i.e., UMTS. When the train reaches the next train station, the phone picks up a WLAN (Wireless Local Access Network) access point. The WLAN access point supports a much greater bandwidth which might provide a much better quality video call. At this point the mobile client switches to a network access

11thTwente Student Conference on IT, Enschede, June 29th, 2009

Copyright 2009, University of Twente, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science

point supported by another wireless technology. This process is called a vertical handover. [5] [6] The central goal of the handover mechanisms is to maximize overall network utilization and allow each client to remain best connected at all times [7]. Best connected is specified as having the optimal connection for the service the client is using. A handover process can typically be divided into five parts: measurements, processing, reporting, decision and execution. A general description of the handover procedure is given below, see [8]. To make sure that the connection stays maintained, a handover mechanism constantly scans the air for other access points and monitors the active connection. Once the service criteria arent fully supported anymore, or when a better suitable network is found, then a handover procedure is started. The next section of this paper explains this decision in detail, see [5]. To give a more detailed view of a handover, a high level GSM handover example is given: In the first step of the handover procedure the client connects and registers with the new access point. Then the connection specific information is transmitted (reference id, status, etc). Only when the connection is successfully taken over, the client disconnects from the old access point, see [2] [9]. With todays new technologies, vertical handovers become more popular. For example, a few years ago tri-band mobile phones were far from mainstream; nowadays quad-band phones with personal area network interfaces are common, and phones are even equipped with wireless LAN interfaces. With all these types of networks deciding which network(s) to attach to are not easy problems when considering all parameters involved: Radio resource sharing, multi-operator environment, security, end-toend path optimality and energy efficiency. Making the right decisions involves several constraints and has to meet several objectives. Failing to satisfy the constraints causes service interruptions for the mobile node; not meeting the objectives leads to, for example, inefficient use of battery power and network resources, see [7].

To decide the handover moment, handover mechanisms use signal strength algorithms to determine the distance to the access point. Once the client comes near the border of the coverage area the algorithm starts determining the handover point. Measurement errors in this process can lead to unnecessary handovers, which can lead to higher energy consumption and possible degradation of the supported QoS, see [8] [11].

3.3 Handover delay

The duration of the handover procedure is an important criterion of the efficiency of a handover mechanism. When a handover takes too long, service disruption can be experienced or connections can timeout and will be lost. For example, a real time video call could experience a temporary disruption when a handover takes longer than 400 ms. If the delay is even longer, the call could be terminated entirely. To provide a seamless and efficient handover, this delay should be as short as possible. The delay is measured from the execution of the handover algorithm until the algorithm completes the handover procedure and the client is successfully connected to the other access point, see [5] [12]. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has specified a handover delay QoS parameter for IP transport of telecommunication applications in [13]. The value of the required handover delay parameter changes for different application classes. This paper focuses on seamless handovers and for that reason only classes for real-time applications are used. The classes used are 0 and 1. Class 0 requires a delay of less than 100 ms and class 1 requires a delay of less than 400 ms.

3.4 Packet loss

An optimal handover mechanism provides handover without packet losses. No packet or/-data loss is almost impossible so the less packet loss a mechanism generates, the more efficient the mechanism is. [12] The ITU has also got a QoS parameter for this and states that the probability for a packet loss shouldnt be more than 1 103, see [13].

3. REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EFFICIENT HANDOVER SOLUTION

To provide an efficient handover there are several requirements and criteria. During the literature research many requirements and criteria for an efficient handover were found. Some of these requirements are listed below.

3.5 Scalability: how scalable is a handover solution?

The scalability of a handover solution is an important factor when implementing it into wireless network technologies with a high density of mobile users. When the number of supported users significantly increases will the handover mechanism still be efficient? Often a high density of mobile users generates errors.

3.1 Handover moment

One of the most important criteria for an efficient handover is the handover moment or handover location. To provide a handover without degrading the quality of service (QoS) the location of the handover moment should be carefully planned. The optimal point for a handover is at a spot where the old and the new access point have an overlap in coverage area. Outside this area there might be a lot of noise which degrades the connection and slows the handover down. When a handover moment isnt chosen at the right point this might also lead to unnecessary handovers. This leads to the next criterion, see [10].

3.6 Complexity of the solution

The complexity of a handover procedure is very important when talking about mobile devices. These devices are often battery powered and have limited resources. If the handover mechanism takes too many resources, smaller mobile devices cant use the handover.

3.7 Modifications of the protocol standards

A solution which can be placed in the already available network architecture without changing the standard (signaling) procedures and protocols makes the solution easier to be deployed.

3.2 Unnecessary handovers

An important requirement for an efficient handover mechanism is the amount of unnecessary handovers. The lower the number of unnecessary handovers the more efficient the handover mechanism is.

4. HANDOVER SOLUTIONS
To make a comparison of handovers between UMTS and LTE, the handovers used in the standards for both technologies are explained in the first two sections. After that three other possible solutions are explained.

provide continuous coverage. A graphical representation of the handover is given in Figure 2.

4.1 UMTS Handovers

At this moment UMTS uses the Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN) for handovers. The architecture of UTRAN can be seen in Figure 1. The main component in UTRAN is the Radio Network Controller (RNC) which is connected to several base stations called Node Bs. Every Node B can support several cells with clients connected. Within UTRAN, UMTS uses Wideband Code Division Multiple Access technology (WCDMA) to carry radio transmissions. WCDMA is emerged as the most widely adopted third generation air interface. Its specification has been created in the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) WCDMA provides three different types of handovers which will be explained below, see [14].

Figure 2: UMTS to LTE Handover The handover mechanism is triggered by the RNC. First the RNC sends a command to measure and report the signal strength from the cells in the vicinity. Between UMTS and LTE, the client performs E-UTRAN measurements which will be explained in the next sub section. Once those measurements are received by the RNC, it evaluates the measurement and decides if and which cell to switch to. Once the decision has been made, the RNC sends the command to perform the handover, see [15]. If the connection to the LTE network is successful, the Serving GPRS support node (SGSN) will forward packets from existing connections through the Serving GateWay (S-GW) towards the client and vice versa.

Core Network Iu RNS RNS Iur RNC Iub Node B Iub Node B Iub Node B RNC Iub Node B Iu

UTRAN

4.2 LTE Handovers

Figure 1: UTRAN Architecture Intra Frequency handovers (from [15]) LTE uses Evolved UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access network (EUTRAN) for handovers, see [16]. EUTRAN is the evolvement of UTRAN which was developed as a multiple access method with a functional split between the radio access and core network in the network architecture, see Figure 3. Due to this split all radio functionality (RLC/MAC) is placed in the base station, also called eNodeB (an evolved UTRAN Node B). This means that the eNodeB is responsible for decisions of horizontal handovers. Due to the use of eNodeB with RNC capabilities there is no need for a separate RNC and thus handovers between two cells on the same RNC arent needed anymore which makes EUTRAN a flat network architecture, see [14].

4.1.1 Intra Frequency handovers

Intra Frequency handovers are horizontal handovers between two access points on the same frequency. The handover initiation is started by an algorithm which measures the signal strength continuously. When the algorithm finds a stronger cell, the cell is added to its active set, or else into the neighbor list. First, the RNC queries the client for its active set. After the RNC receives the set, it chooses the best cell to switch to and orders the client to handover. These handovers are the most common ones and are performed to provide roaming and mobility support to the users, see [14].

4.1.2 Inter Frequency Handovers within WCDMA

Inter Frequency handovers within WCDMA are handovers between different frequencies in the same network. These handovers are used to provide a higher capacity on the cell. The RNC triggers the client to start measuring and identify cells and put them on the neighbor list. During the measurements and identification the client finds cells with a shared channel. The client indentifies the cells as separate single channel cells for compatibility and reports the measurements to the RNC. The RNC sends the command to connect to the cell with the lowest load or best signal, see [14].

4.1.3 Inter System or Inter RAT Handovers

Inter System or Inter RAT handovers are vertical handovers between different network types i.e. UMTS to LTE. At the start of the UMTS deployment, this mechanism was mostly used to Figure 3 LTE/SAE Architecture (from [15])

4.2.1 LTE Intra EUTRAN Handover

Because of the flat architecture, LTE has only one horizontal handover type called the intra EUTRAN handover. This handover is triggered by the eNodeB. The eNodeB makes the handover decision on signal measurements made by the client. Once the source eNodeB decides to initiate the execution of the handover, it requests a preparation on the target eNodeB. The target eNodeB can perform admission control to check whether the established QoS bearers of the client can be accommodated in the target cell, see [17]. Next, the source eNodeB sends the handover command to the client, this command includes all information that is necessary for the client to access the target cell. At the same time the source eNodeB closes the connection with the client and starts to forward the data that has not yet been successfully send to the client toward the target eNodeB. Meanwhile, the client starts to execute the handover and tries to connect at the target eNodeB. To perform this connection, the client needs approximately 30 ms. This time is needed to synchronize with the eNodeB to be able to commence data transmission. Once connected, the client sends the handover complete message through the target cell towards the target eNodeB. This message is used by the target eNodeB to check that the client is connected to the right cell. At this point the data connection is completed. The target eNodeB reports the successful switch to the source eNodeB to release the client, see [3] [14]. The LTE specification [18] states that due this fast handover this mechanism supports seamless mobility support across the cellular network speeds up to 500km/h are supported (depending on the frequency).

this point the client disconnects from the source eNodeB and connects to the other access point. This other access point, in turn will report to the source eNodeB that the handover was successful, see [15]. Once connected the connection is redirected via the SGSN to the S-GW which is connected to the packet data network via the packet data network gateway (PGW). No network connections are lost due to the routing and forwarding mechanism in the S-GW, see [19]. A graphical representation of the handover is given in Figure 5.

Figure 5: LTE to UMTS handover

4.3 Non UMTS or LTE standard handover mechanisms

This section provides an overview of other possible solutions that could be used to provide a vertical handover between the UMTS and LTE wireless technologies.

4.2.2 LTE Inter RAT Handover

To provide handover compatibility with other 3GPP network types i.e. UMTS, LTE uses a component of the System Architecture Evolution (SAE) called Evolved Packet Core (EPC). A subcomponent in the EPC called S-GW provides mobility for inter eNodeB handovers like EUTRAN to UTRAN.

4.3.1 Mobile IP (MIP)

Mobile IP has two versions, version 4 and version 6, both will be explained. IP version 4 (IPv4) assumes that a node's IP address uniquely identifies the node's point of attachment to the Internet. To support this, a node must be located on the network indicated by its IP address in order to receive data destined to it; otherwise, data to the node would be undeliverable. If a node wants to change its point of attachment in IPv4 it always loses its connection (i.e.by IP address change). To support this handover mobile IP defines such a mechanism, which enables nodes to change their point of attachment to the Internet without changing their permanent IP address, see [20]. However, when the mobile node changes its network point of attachment, then this node gets via Mobile IP a temporarily IP address called Care of Address (COA). In Mobile IP the permanent IP address is called Home Address. During the period in which the mobile node remains attached to the network via the same network point of attachment, a binding between the COA and the Home Address is maintained by the Mobile IP functionality. Mobile IP uses three basic functional entities: the mobile node (MN), the Home Agent (HA) and the Foreign Agent (FA) , see Figure 6. When a MN detects that it has moved to a foreign network, it obtains a care-of address (COA) on the foreign network. This address identifies the MN in the other network. Once the MN has its COA, the MN registers it with its HA trough the currently connected FA. At this point, the COA and the home address are bound together. When now data is sent towards the HA of the MN, the data is tunneled towards the MNs COA and finally to the MN itself, this is also called

Figure 4: LTE to UMTS Handover sequence A LTE client constantly reports signal measurements to the connected eNodeB. When the eNodeB determines the necessity to initiate a handover, the handover preparation procedure is initiated. This is done by sending the HANDOVER REQUIRED message to the Mobility Management Entity (MME) located in the EPC, see Figure 4. When the message is received, the MME starts preparation by starting the Resource allocation procedure. This procedure is responsible for getting resource information from the access points in the vicinity. With this information the handover decision is made and the MME sends the HANDOVER command with the needed information to the eNodeB which sends it towards the client. At

triangular routing [5]. The MN itself sends packets directly to the host. In this way the permanent IP address, i.e., Home Address, of the MN stays the same, so TCP connections can be kept alive, see [20].

Figure 8: MIH Scenario Figure 6: Mobile IP routing (from [20]) In IP version 6 (IPv6) mobility support shares many features with mobility support in IPv4. But IPv6 benefits from the experiences gained from IPv4 and so IPv6 has some major improvements. One of the most important and relevant improvement is the route optimization. Mobility support in IPv6 sends its COA towards the host to inform its IP address change. This action optimizes the route of the data flow, because now the data doesnt need to be tunneled anymore through the HA, see [21]. In the scenario presented in Figure 8, the 3G operator and the LTE operator have a roaming relationship and both core networks contain MIH entities. While a mobile node is within the UMTS network, it can query the information server to obtain available LTE network information. This can be done without activating and scanning through the LTE interface. Not scanning can save battery power significantly. Using the information provided by the information server, the mobile node can activate its LTE interface and have the guarantee that there is an available network. Then, the node can connect to the LTE network while the session is still active through the UMTS interface. When successfully connected, the node can use MIH commands to handover. The use of the MIH services allows much of the time-consuming preparation work to be done before the handover takes place which significantly reduces handover latency and packet losses, see [22].

4.3.2 Media Independent Handover (MIH)

MIH is a handover mechanism that is standardized by IEEE and is specified in IEEE 802.21. MIH is a handover mechanism that focuses on service continuity and provides interworking between any wireless network access technology, i.e. IEEE 802 systems (e.g., IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.16e), but also between IEEE 802 and non-IEEE 802 systems (e.g., cellular networks like 3G).

4.3.3 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

SIP is an application-layer control protocol that can establish, modify, and terminate multimedia sessions. SIP can also invite participants to already existing sessions, such as multicast conferences. It transparently supports name mapping and redirection services, which supports personal mobility. This means that users can maintain a single externally visible identifier regardless of their network location, see [23]. As stated in [23], SIP supports five facets of establishing and terminating multimedia communications: User location: determination of the end system to be used for communication; User availability: determination of the willingness of the called party to engage in communications; User capabilities: determination of the media and media parameters to be used; Session setup: "ringing", establishment parameters at both called and calling party; of session

Figure 7: MIH layer (from[6]) MIH is a framework which is positioned between the IP layer and the network specific link layer. As you can see in Figure 7 the layer has three communication lines to relay information between the two layers, see [6]. To explain this in more detail the following scenario is described, see Figure 8.

Session management: including transfer and termination of sessions, modifying session parameters, and invoking services.

With these functionalities, clients can always be found after a handover and connections can be re-established and maintained. SIP doesnt provide services, but provides primitives that can be used to implement services. In particular, SIP can locate a client and send a data object to it, the data object can contain everything e.g. service related data. [23] also states that IPv4 and IPv6 are supported.

Unnecessary Handovers o o o o Good: no unnecessary handovers; Fair: some unnecessary handovers but without service degradation; Bad: too much unnecessary handovers which causes service degradation; Fair*: the unnecessary handovers quality for the MIP base protocol could not be easily defined, but it is important to emphasize that the IETF has specified and is currently specifying several handover enhancements that can be applied in combination with the MIP base protocol, such as [25]; Good: handover delay is below 100 ms (class 0 of ITU); Fair: handover delay is below 400 ms (class 1 of ITU); Bad: handover delay is over 400 ms (class 1 of ITU); Fair*: the handover delay for the MIP base protocol, is Bad, but it is important to emphasize that the IETF has specified and is currently specifying several handover enhancements that can be applied in combination with the MIP base protocol, such as [25]. Good: no packets are lost during the handover; Fair: some packets may be lost during the transfer, but below the threshold of 1 103; Bad: packet loss is higher than the threshold of 1 103. Good: very good usable in environments with both high and low density of users; Fair: moderate usable in environments with both high and low density of users; Bad: not usable in environments with both high and low density of users. Good: Just a couple of simple procedures and resources needed which can be done by any device and makes it easy to implement; Fair: Some more procedures and resources are needed but can still be done by almost any device and makes it moderate to implement; Bad: a lot of procedures and resources needed, hard for most mobile devices and hard to implement. Good: very easy to implement without modifications to the protocols used; Fair: moderate to implement, some changes have to be made to the protocols used; Bad: hard to implement, a lot of changes have to be made to the protocols used.

Handover Delay o o

Figure 9: SIP Handover A SIP session, see Figure 9, is started with SIP INVITE message to the universal resource indicator (URI) which is associated with the user device. This URI has a fixed address in the format sip:user@domain. The message is sent trough a SIP proxy server that registers the IP address of the user devices and forwards the message. After that, the communication can take place via the Real Time Protocol (RTP). When a client changes from network architecture, the client has to re-INVITE to the corresponding node and register at the proxy server. Once this is done, both nodes can communicate again because the proxy server knows where to find them, see [24].

o o

Packet Loss o o o

5. COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF HANDOVER SOLUTIONS

In this section the vertical handover solutions explained earlier will be compared with the requirements found in section 3. Every solution is explained separately except the Inter RAT Handovers from UMTS and LTE, which are treated together. The reason why they are treated together is because both handovers principles are very similar. First a table, see Figure 10, which summarizes the solutions compared to the requirements is shown. The properties good, fair and bad are interpreted for each requirement in the following way: Handover Moment o o Good: handover on the perfect moment, without service degradation; Fair: handover on the moment where both cells are still in range, but with a little service degradation (i.e. higher packet loss); Bad: handover too early or too late, with high service degradation or even service loss; Fair*: the handover moment quality for the MIP base protocol could not be easily defined, but it is important to emphasize that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has specified and is currently specifying several handover enhancements that can be applied in combination with the MIP base protocol, such as [25].

Scalability o o o

Complexity o

o o

Modifications to the protocol o o o

enhancements that can be applied in combination with the MIP base protocol, such as [25].

Handover moment Inter RAT MIP MIH SIP Good Fair* Good -

5.1 Inter RAT Handover

Due to the fact that the handover moment of an inter RAT handover is decided by measurements done by the client which reports them to the source NodeB or eNodeB, the handover moment can be chosen at the ideal time and location. This also means that if the decisions made on the measurements are done right, there is almost no chance of unnecessary handovers. This method has also a disadvantage, using the client to measure signal strength will take some processing power and consumes battery. As stated in [18] the handover delay during a EUTRAN to UTRAN handover doesnt take longer than 300 ms for real-time quality services. This is below the ITU threshold parameter for real time services and thus will go unnoticed by the user. LTE and UMTS support specific features to increase reliability and packet loss. Therefore, it could be assumed that the packet loss criterion can be graded with Good. The provided handover solution needs sophisticated procedures, but compared to the large number of features and procedures supported by LTE and UMTS, this complexity can be considered as non-significant. The flat architecture provided due the split has also got its advantages. The biggest advantage is that it makes the solution highly scalable, see [14].

5.2 Mobile IP (MIP)

Due to the use of triangular routing, the QoS of real-time communications can be degraded. This is because the routing adds extra hops which can increase packet delay. In addition the redundant routing in MIP results in traffic increase on the home agent, see [26]. MIP handovers can take up to seconds, see [27]. Due to these high handover delays, there is a high chance that the handover will be noticed by the user. Long packet routes and high packet delays create a bigger probability of packet losses, see [26]. Due to the fact that each home domain can be managed by a different home agent, makes the MIP solution fairly scalable. A scalability drawback however, is that the capacity of a home agent can limit the number of mobile users that can be supported in a home domain. Servers could easily be placed in the core network to support MIP. In order to use MIP for UMTS LTE handovers, some minor modifications on the standards might be needed. A MIP handover between UMTS and LTE is initiated when the MN detects that it has moved to a foreign network, see [20]. Because of this, MIP cannot control the handover moment which means it is not responsible for unnecessary handovers. Note however, that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has specified and is currently specifying several handover

Unnecessary Handovers Good Fair* Good -

Figure 10: Comparison of Handovers

Handover delay Fair Fair* Fair Fair

Good Fair Fair Fair

Packet loss

Good Fair Fair Fair

Scalability

Fair Fair Bad Good

Complexity

Modifications to protocol Good Fair Fair Fair

5.3 Media Independent Handover (MIH)

MIH is dependent on an extra layer in the network stack. The use of an extra layer between the link layer and the IP layer makes the MIH solution a complex solution. The use of an extra layer has also, a significant advantage: The scalability of MIH depends on how it will be integrated within the LTE and UMTS network. Moreover, this also depends on the way of how the MIHF entities, see Figure 8, are distributed and used. Due to the use of an additional protocol layer, between the IP layer and the different Link layers, modifications on the available standards might be needed. Due to the fact that MIH uses a make-before-break handover procedure, the information about the target network can be gathered before the original connection is lost. This significantly improves the calculation accuracy of the handover moment and decreases the number of unnecessary handovers. The delay of MIH handovers is dependent on the used protocol in the IP layer. When implemented with Mobile IP, MIH decreases the delay to approximately 200ms which also results in low packet losses, see [6].

5.4 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

According to [24], a SIP based handover performed will take approximately 227 ms, in average. This time, depends of course on the used network scenario, and is mainly consumed by the reconnection, re-invite and termination + setup of the RTP. With this procedure, the proxy SIP server already knows the ends of the connection and with this information the connection can be re-established quickly, which shortens the handover delay significantly. A short handover delay means a low packet loss. Deployment of a SIP based handover solution is not complex. Due to the fact that SIP is an application layer handover mechanism, it is easy to implement it on different platforms. SIP is using a client server based architecture. This means that the number of users that will be supported by the SIP based handover solution will depend on the capacity and on the way of how the SIP servers are distributed within the network. A SIP handover between UMTS and LTE is initiated when the client changes from subnet, see [24]. SIP is an application layer protocol and therefore, it is not able to accurately calculate the handover moment and to prevent unnecessary handovers.

6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

In this paper the efficiency of vertical handover mechanisms supported between UMTS and LTE have been researched. Due to the fact that handover mechanisms maintain network connections over different wireless technologies and network architectures they are one of the most important mechanisms for the support of the mobility of a user. In this paper several handover solutions where compared with the requirements for handover efficiency. These handover efficiency requirements were found in the papers that studied and analyzed handover mechanisms such as [3]. The most important requirements where: handover moment, handover delay, packet loss, scalability, complexity and protocol modifications. The research of this paper first focused on the already used handover mechanisms between UMTS and LTE. After that, other possible solutions where used to make a comparison and

to analyze if there were other mechanisms that might outperform the standardized Inter-RAT vertical handover. These additional handover solutions are mobile IP, media independent handover and session initiation protocol. These solutions were chosen because they are often used and researched. Finally the solutions found were compared to the requirements for handover efficiency found earlier. This comparison gave some interesting results. As can be seen in Figure 10, for some of the criteria, the inter-RAT handover mechanism is outperforming other handover mechanisms. None of the studied handover mechanisms was found to be more efficient than the standard Inter-RAT handover solution. During the research several other solutions where identified. Most of these solutions were combinations or improved copies of the basic solutions described in other papers, see [24][26][28][29][30]. These handovers solutions might be very interesting for further research. Finally, to test the handover efficiency of the different handover solutions in a more accurate way, quantitative experiments and analysis maybe needed, which can be performed using, for all handover solutions, the same test environment and workload parameters.

2007. PIMRC 2007. IEEE 18th International Symposium on , pp.1-5, September 2007 [9] 3GPP TS 48.008 V8.5.0 (2008-11), Mobile Switching Centre - Base Station System (MSC-BSS) interface; Layer 3 specification, November 2008 [10] Christophorou C.; Pitsillides A., MBMS Handover control: A new approach for efficient handover in MBMS enabled 3G cellular networks, Computer Networks, vol. 51, no. 18, pp. 4897-4918, December 2007 [11] Christophorou, C.; Pitsillides, A., An Efficient Handover Algorithm for MBMS Enabled 3G Mobile Cellular Networks, Computers and Communications, 2006. ISCC '06. Proceedings. 11th IEEE Symposium on, pp. 187-193, June 2006 [12] Kim H.; Yeom H., An efficient multicast mechanism for data loss prevention, Advanced Communication Technology, 2005, ICACT 2005. The 7th International Conference on, vol.1, pp. 497-502, February 2005 [13] ITU-T Y.1541 Network Performance Objectives for IPBased Services, May 2002 [14] Holma H.; Toskala A., WCDMA for UMTS: HSPA Evolution and LTE, 4th edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2007. [15] Hammer, M.; Salkintzis, A.; Tanaka, I.; Wong, C., Voice call handover mechanisms in next-generation 3GPP systems, Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.47, no.2, pp.46-56, February 2009 [16] 3GPP TS 36.300 V8.7.0 (2008-12) , Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (EUTRAN), December 2008 [17] Amirijoo, M.; Frenger, P.; Gunnarsson, F.; Kallin, H.; Moe, J.; Zetterberg, K., Neighbor cell relation list and measured cell identity management in LTE, Network Operations and Management Symposium, 2008. NOMS 2008. IEEE, pp.152-159, April 2008 [18] UTRA-UTRAN Long Term Evolution (LTE) and 3GPP System Architecture Evolution (SAE) ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/Inbox/2008_web_files/LTA_Paper.pdf, access date: 22 April 2009 [19] Salkintzis, A.; Hammer, M.; Tanaka, I.; Wong, C., "Voice call handover mechanisms in next-generation 3GPP systems," Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.47, no.2, pp.46-56, February 2009 [20] RFC3344, c. Perkins, IP mobility support for IP4 nodes, August 2002 [21] RFC3775, D Johnson, C. Perkins, J. Arkko, Mobility Support in IPv6, June 2004 [22] Taniuchi, K.; Ohba, Y.; Fajardo, V.; Das, S.; Tauil, M.; Yuu-Heng Cheng; Dutta, A.; Baker, D.; Yajnik, M.; Famolari, D., IEEE 802.21: Media independent handover: Features, applicability, and realization, Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.47, no.1, pp.112-120, January 2009 [23] RFC3261, J Rosenberg, et. Al., Mobility SIP: Session Initiation Protocol, June 2002 [24] Jover, F.; Reid, G.; Jover, X., A faster Handover Mechanism using SIP, Mobile and Wireless Communications Summit, 2007. 16th IST , pp.1-5, July 2007

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor dr. ir. Georgios Karagiannis. He helped me with the structure of my research and always reviewed my work. I would also like to thank my reviewers. They provided useful comments and helped me with my English.

REFERENCES
[1] Banerjee, N.; Wei Wu; Das, S.K., Mobility support in wireless Internet, Wireless Communications, IEEE, vol.10, no.5, pp. 54-61, Oct 2003 [2] 3GPP TS 23.009 V8.0.1 procedures, January 2009 (2009-01), Handover

[3] Racz, A.; Temesvary, A.; Reider, N., Handover Performance in 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) Systems, Mobile and Wireless Communications Summit, 2007. 16th IST, pp.1-5, July 2007 [4] Bachl, R., Gunreben, P., Das, S., & Tatesh, S., The long term evolution towards a new 3GPP* air interface standard. Bell Labs Technical Journal, vol.11, no.4, pp. 25-51, March 2007 [5] Taylor, L.; Titmuss, R.; Lebre, C., The challenges of seamless handover in future mobile multimedia networks, Personal Communications, IEEE , vol.6, no.2, pp.32-37, April 1999 [6] Wright, D.J., Maintaining QoS During Handover Among Multiple Wireless Access Technologies, Management of Mobile Business, 2007. ICMB 2007. International Conference on the , pp.10-10, July 2007 [7] Hollos, D.; Poyhonen, P.; Strandberg, O.; Aguero, R.; Pentikousis, K.; Blume, O., A Study of Handover Strategies for Mobile Multiaccess Ambient Networks, Mobile and Wireless Communications Summit, 2007. 16th IST , pp.1-5, July 2007 [8] Anas, M.; Calabrese, F.D.; Ostling, P.-E.; Pedersen, K.I.; Mogensen, P.E., Performance Analysis of Handover Measurements and Layer 3 Filtering for Utran LTE, Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications,

[25] RFC5268, R. Koodli, Ed. , Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers, June 2008 [26] Seta, N.; Miyajima, H.; Zhang, L.; Hayashi, H.; Fujii, T., All-SIP Mobility: Session Continuity on Handover in Heterogeneous Access Environment, Vehicular Technology Conference, 2007. VTC2007-Spring. IEEE 65th , pp.1121-1126, April 2007 [27] F. Zhu and J. McNair, Cross layer design for Mobile IP handoff, in Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC 2005-Spring), vol. 4, pp. 22552259, March 2005 [28] Hwang Y.; Park A., Vertical Handover Platform over Applying the Open API for WLAN and 3G LTE Systems,

Vehicular Technology Conference, 2008. VTC 2008-Fall. IEEE 68th , pp.1-5, September 2008 [29] Kwon D.; Kim W.; Suh Y., An efficient mobile multicast mechanism for fast handovers: A study from design and implementation in experimental networks, Computer Communications, vol. 31, no.10, pp. 2162-2177, June 2008 [30] Yoo S.; Shin S., Fast Handover Mechanism For Seamless Multicasting Services in Mobile IPv6 Wireless Networks, Wireless Personal Communications, 2007, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 509-526, September 2007