Web Site: www.ijettcs.org Email: editor@ijettcs.org, editorijettcs@gmail.

com Volume 2, Issue 2, March April 2013 ISSN 2278-6856

Mobility Management Approaches for Mobile IP Networks: Performance Comparison and Use Recommendations
Dr. B.G.Prasanthi. V.Umesh, Dr.T.Bhaskar reddy
Professor, Dept.of MCA, SRN Adarsh College,Bangalore. Asst.Prof,Dept.of BCA, Dept of Computer science , Padmashree Institute of management and sciences,Bangalore Professor S.K.University, Anantapur.

Abstract: IP multimedia applications are becoming popular

in the packet-based wireless networks. The integration of these applications in wireless networks requires the support of seamless terminal mobility. Mobile IP (MIP) has been proposed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to provide global mobility in IP networks. It allows maintaining mobile terminals ongoing communications while moving through IP network. In the MIP protocol, Mobile Terminal (MT) registers with its home network from which it gets a permanent address (home address). This address is stored in the Home Agent (HA). It is used for identification and routing purpose. If MT moves outside the home network visiting a foreign network, it maintains its home address and obtains a new one from the Foreign Agent (FA). This Foreign address is called Care-of-Address (CoA). To allow continuity of ongoing communications between the MT and a remote end point, the MT shall inform the HA of its current location when it moves outside the home network. The HA delivers to MT the intercepted packets by tunneling them to the MTs current point of attachment. IP mobility in wireless networks can be classified into macro- and micromobility. The macromobility is the MT mobility through different administration domains. The micromobility is the MT movements through different subnets belonging to a single network domain.

changes FA within the same regional network, it updates its CoA by performing a regional registration to the GFA. When a MT moves to another regional network, it performs a home registration with its HA using a publicly routable address of GFA. The packets intercepted by the HA are tunneled to a new GFA to which the MT is belonging (e.g., GFA2 following MT This regional registration is sensitive to the GFAs failure because of the centralized system architecture. Moreover, a high traffic load on GFAs and frequent mobility between regional networks degrade the mobility scheme performance. In order to reduce the signaling load for interregional networks, mobility dynamic location management approaches for MIP have been proposed: A Hierarchical Distributed Dynamic Mobile IP (HDDMIP) and Dynamic Hierarchical Mobile IP (DHMIP).

2. MIP and DHMIP mobility approaches

Keywords : Mobile Internet Protocol, Mobile terminal, Foreign Agent, Home Agent, Internet Engineering Task, Care of Address, Hierarchical Mobile Internet Protocol Gateway Foreign Agent, Hierarchical Distributed Dynamic Mobile Internet Protocol, Dynamic Hierarchical Mobile Internet Protocol

1. INTRODUCTION
For micromobility where the MT movement is frequent, the MIP concept is not suitable and needs to be improved. Indeed, the processing overhead related to location update could be high specifically under high number of MTs and when MTs are distant from the HAs yielding to high mobility signaling delay. Hierarchical Mobile IP (HMIP) has been proposed to reduce the number of location updates to HA and the signaling latency when an MT moves from one subnet to another. In this mobility scheme, FAs and Gateway FAs (GFAs) are organized into a hierarchy. When an MT Volume 2, Issue 2 March April 2013 Page 489

Web Site: www.ijettcs.org Email: editor@ijettcs.org, editorijettcs@gmail.com Volume 2, Issue 2, March April 2013 ISSN 2278-6856
Analytic model to evaluate the mean signaling delay and the mean bandwidth. We propose to compare the performance of the MHMIP handoff approach with those obtained with DHMIP and MIP approaches in terms of mean bandwidth and mean handoff delay per call.

3. Algorithm Description
Analytic model that allows computation of mean bandwidth and mean handoff delay per call for MIP, DHMIP, and MHMIP mobility approaches. These performance measurements are computed according to the MTs mobility type (high or low) and the call holding time duration. The model description and the performance comparison of the three mobility approaches are discussed in the following sections.

4. Methodology
The mobile IP can provide continuous Internet access services for the mobile user and does provide a simple and scalable solution to user mobility. Yet, mobile IP is not a good solution for users with high mobility because it may cause excessive signaling traffic and long latency. The hierarchical mobile IP (HMIP) protocol was proposed to employ the hierarchy of foreign agents (FAs) and the gateway FAs (GFAs) to reduce the number of registration operations and to reduce the signaling latency. However, since user mobility characteristics and network traffic load are always in changing, the centralized and preplanned network topology of HMIP would become invalid or even lead more signaling cost if no adjustment to be adopted. This paper introduces a novel distributed and dynamic mobility management strategy for mobile IP where the signaling burden is evenly distributed and the regional network boundary is dynamically adjusted according to the real-time measurement of handover strength or traffic load in the networks.

5. PROPOSED MODEL
Hence, we propose an analytic model to evaluate the mean signaling delay and the mean bandwidth per call according to the type of MT mobility. In our analysis, the MHMIP outperforms the DHMIP and MIP strategies in almost all the studied cases.

7. Conclusion
For summarization purpose, we compute the ratios Bp,PR=BhPR, Br,PR=Bh,PR, Dp,PR=Dh,PR, and Dr ,PR=Dh,PR. These ratios allow a simple and direct reading of the different performance between the tree mobility management approaches.Figs. 6 and 7 give an example of mean bandwidth variation per call Bp,PR and Bh,PR for the DHMIP and MHMIP handoff approaches. Fig. 6 illustrates the mean bandwidths per call for MHMIP and DHMIP mobility management approaches. It shows that the MHMIP mean bandwidth per call is smaller than that obtained with the DHMIP approach. This mean bandwidth represents a performance measurement that an IP network operator can use to determine the needed resources to be deployed in the network to service a certain number of MTs. The MHMIP mobility management approach is the method that allows cost reduction in terms of resources usage compared to the DHMIP approach.Fig. 7 illustrates the Bp=BPR ratio variation for different values of the probability p. We note that lower is p higher is the mean bandwidth per call. Moreover, we note a different behavior of this bandwidth Page 490

6. Simulation and results

The main contribution of this paper is the analytic model that allows the mobility management approaches performance evaluation.

Volume 2, Issue 2 March April 2013

Web Site: www.ijettcs.org Email: editor@ijettcs.org, editorijettcs@gmail.com Volume 2, Issue 2, March April 2013 ISSN 2278-6856
between the intervals qa _ 0:3 and 0:3 _ qa _ 1. For 0:3 _ qa _ 1, the mean bandwidth value decreases while it increases in the interval qa _ 0:2 for different values of p (p qa=6; qa=4; qa=2) and still increasing in the interval 0:2 _ qa _ 0:3 for p qa=6. This is in fact due to the low probability of path reestablishment p and the frequent use of path extension in the interval qa _ 0:3. Hence, less frequent path reestablishment usage for DHMIP mobility management approach involves a high mean bandwidth per call consumption. Bibliography [1] Srikant Sharma, Ningning Zhu, Tzi-cker Chiueh, Low-LatencyMobile IP Hand-off for InfrastructureMode Wireless LANs, IEEE Journal on Selected Areasin Communication, Special issue on All IP Wireless Networks, 2004 [2] C. Perkins, ed., IP Mobility Support, RFC 2002, Oct., 1996. [3] IEEE, IEEE Standard for Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Nov., 1999. [4] S. Seshan, H. Balakrishnan, and R. Katz, Handoffs in Cellular Wireless Net-works: The Daedalus Implementation and Experience, Kluwer International Journal on Wireless Communication Systems, 1996. [5] E. Shim, and R. Gitlin, Neighbor Casting: A Fast Handoff Mechanism in Wire-less IP Using Neighboring Foreign Agent Information, New York Metro Area Networking Workshop, 2001. [6] C. Tan, S. Pink, and K. Lye, A Fast Handoff Scheme for Wireless Networks,Second ACM international workshop on Wireless mobile multimedia, 1999. [7] K. Malki, P. Calhoun, T. Hiller, J. Kempf, P. McCann, A. Singh, H. Soliman,and S. Thalanany, Low Latency Handoffs inMobile IPv4, Internet draft,Mobile IP Working Group, Jun., 2002. [8] D. Forsberg, J. Malinen, J. Malinen, T. Weckstrom, and M. Tiusanen, Dis-tributing Mobility Agents Hierarchically under Frequent Location Updates,Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Ap-plications, Feb., 1999. [9] E. Gustafsson, A. Jonsson, and C. Perkins, Mobile IP Regional Registration,Internet draft, draftietfmobileipreg-tunnel-04.txt, Mar., 2001. [10] P. Calhoun, T. Hiller, J. Kempf, P. McCann, C. Pairla, A. Singh, and S. Tha-lanany, Foreign Agent Assisted Handoff, Internet draft, draft-ietf-mobileipproactive-fa-03.txt, Nov., 2000. [11] M. Baker, X. Zhao, S. Cheshire and J. Stone, Supporting Mobility in MosquitoNet, Proceedings of USENIX Techincal Conference, Jan., 1996. [12] 802.11FTM: IEEE Recommended Practice for MultiVendor Access Point In-teroperability via an InterAccess Point Protocol Across Distribution Systems Volume 2, Issue 2 March April 2013 Page 491 Supporting IEEE 802.11TM Operation [13] Michael Montemurro, Darwin Engwer, Roaming Requirements Discussion, doc.: IEEE 802.1104/286r0, March 2004