Centralized, Distributed or Replicated IP Mobility?

Condeixa, Tiago; Sargento, Susana

doi:10.1109/lcomm.2013.121713.132434

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, in [8][9][10], authors extend PMIPv6 to provide network-based distributed IP mobility management solutions. However, these solutions need to communicate with some central or distributed entity to verify and validate the handed over mobile hosts, thereby incurring additional delay and signaling.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these solutions need to communicate with some central or distributed entity to verify and validate the handed over mobile hosts, thereby incurring additional delay and signaling. In [10], authors have proposed a mobility solution, called multiple local mobility anchor (MLMA), in which authors used the PMIPv6 while employing a replicating strategy. Since MLMA supports the host mobility management in flatter networks, i.e., the same context our proposal is prepared for, further details about MLMA are presented and its handover procedures are shown in Fig.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, there is no need to update the MH record at the RVS since the MH is still reachable via the registered proxy at the RVSs. Unlike [8][9][10], the DMHP does not incur additional handover delay due to verification and validation of handed over MHs. And also unlike [12], the DMHP does not incur additional handover delay due to configuration of new IP address in the same domain and thus DAD delay.…”

Section: Handovermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, signaling overheads of PMIPv6-based distributed mobility management solutions [8,9], HIPP-MIP [2], MHP [3], MLMA [10], and DMHP are described in Table 2. The first row in Table 2 indicates the number of binding update messages when the MH has ongoing communication sessions with one CH.…”

Section: Simulation Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is because the DMHP updates only the PoA through which the active sessions are established and not the CHs. Furthermore, unlike distributed mobility solutions in [8][9][10], the DMHP does not require a consultation with any third party on security aspects as it has capabilities of self-certifying at the HIP layer. Moreover, DMHP avoids all signals related to DAD and signal overheads on the HIP MH interface.…”

Section: Simulation Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Distributed mobility management with mobile Host Identity Protocol proxy

Muslam

Chan

Ventura

2017

J Wireless Com Network

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The architectural evolution from hierarchical to flatter networks creates new challenges such as single points of failure and bottlenecks, non-optimal routing paths, scalability problems, and long handover delays. The cellular networks have been hierarchical so that they are largely built on centralized functions based on which their handover mechanisms have been built. They need to be redesigned and/or carefully optimized. The mobility extension to Host Identity Protocol (HIP) proxy, mobile HIP Proxy (MHP), provides a seamless and secure handover for the Mobile Host in the hierarchical network. However, the MHP cannot ensure the same handover performance in flatter network because the MHP has also utilized the features offered by the hierarchical architecture. This paper extends the MHP to distributed mobile HIP proxy (DMHP). The performance evaluation of the DMHP in comparison to MHP and other similar mobility solutions demonstrates that DMHP does indeed perform well in the flatter networks. Moreover, the DMHP supports both efficient multi-homing and handover management for many mobile hosts at the same time to the same new point of attachment.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%