Using NEMO to Support the Global Reachability of MANET Nodes

DRO: domain-based route optimization scheme for nested mobile networks

“…Clausen et al [17] used the optimized link state routing (OLSR) protocol to support route optimization, but the scheme does not consider the handoff situation of the MR. McCarthy et al [18,19] introduced the MANEMO concept and identified two key solution areas in the MANEMO problem domain, namely, NEMO-Centric MANEMO (NCM) and MANET-Centric MANEMO (MCM). McCarthy et al [20,21] and Tsukada and Ernst [22] built testbeds for implementing and experimenting with the MANEMO protocols. Although their results show that MANEMO outperforms the traditional NEMO protocol, they only considered inter-domain route optimization and measured the packet transmission delay between the CN and the MNN.…”

Performance Analysis of a Highly Available Home Agent in Mobile Networks

“…Related work on HA reliability: Many reliability protocols have been proposed to solve the problem of HA reliability in (Wakikawa, 2009;McCarthy et al, 2009;Zhenkai et al, 2011;Ayaz et al, 2009;Gay et al, 2009;Rathi and Thanuskodi, 2009;Lin and Yang, 2009). Currently, there is no standard RFC or protocol to solve the HA reliability problem in NEMO, the most recent work in progress can be found in (Wakikawa, 2009).…”

“…VHARP introduces ideas which we opted to adapt such as the use of a virtual address, however a problem with the protocol is that it does not provide an optimal mechanism defined for HA failure detection and the protocol uses modified router advertisements, which is a slow process since these messages are sent within certain intervals suitable for router advertisements, usually between 1 and 3 second according to the implementation used. Another method using distributed HAs to achieve global HA reliability is found in (McCarthy et al, 2009), the global scope introduces new issues such as the use of anycast routing on a global scale (Khare et al, 2010) as well as overheads due to the synchronization messages involved. Research work based on this protocol is found in (Ayaz et al, 2009) it describes that in a global HA to HA network, each HA can be either a primary HA (priHA) or a proxy HA (proHA) for an MR. Each MR has a Home Address (HoA) configured either from the home network prefix or from its MNP depending on the physical deployment.…”

“…The mentioned solutions provide HA reliability (Bassek et al, 2006) through various ways such as HA redundancy (Wakikawa, 2009;Gay et al, 2009;Rathi and Thanuskodi, 2009;Lin and Yang, 2009) Distributed HAs in (McCarthy et al, 2009;Zhenkai et al, 2011Ayaz et al, 2009 or MN initiated recovery by using mechanisms such as "Home Address Regerneration" in (Lin and Yang, 2009). The time required for the recovery of HA varies as well between different solutions.…”

“…Wakikawa (2009) and Rathi and Thanuskodi (2009) the recovery time for a HA is reported to be in the range of 3 to 4 seconds, while in (Gay et al, 2009) as a partial implementation of (Wakikawa, 2009), the recorded time was 0.7 seconds for transparent mode not involving MN and 2 seconds for a non-transparent mechanism involving MN. Other methods such as those mentioned in (McCarthy et al, 2009;Zhenkai et al, 2011;Ayaz et al, 2009) have not provided figures of HA recovery time. Frantti and Koivula (2011), it is mentioned that for real-time application such as VoIP and video conferencing, the quality of IP mobility services is affected by packet loss, delay and jitter.…”