Evaluation of Route Optimization Method in Mobile IPv6 Networks

With Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) protocol support, mobile hosts can move from their home networks or one network to another without interrupting ongoing session. In MIPv6 network, packets from CN to MN undergo rectangular routing owing to long delay and tunneling overhead that affect the performance of mobile network. Furthermore, during handover process packet loss due to MN mobility is high which eventually hinder the performance of real application such as video conference, VoIP. Route optimization methods are applied in mobile network to avoid rectangular routing thus reducing delay, tunneling overhead and improving packet delivery. This paper investigated Return Routability Procedure (RRP) as a route optimization method for MIPv6 networks in terms of packets received, tunneling overhead, route optimization overhead and traffic control received. The result showed that video conference received is the same as if no route optimization was applied. However, comparing tunneled control traffics reduced with route optimization control traffic introduced is negligible. Instead, 0.02% of the tunnel and route optimization overheads were more introduced compared to tunneled and route optimization overheads introduced when no route optimization was applied.

PDF

___

[1] D. Johnson, et al., “Mobility support in IPv6,” No. RFC 3775, 2004.

[2] C. Perkins, et al., “Mobility support in IPv6,” No. RFC 6275, 2011.

[3] A. K. Barbudhe, et al., “Comparison of Mechanisms for Reducing Handover Latency and Packet Loss Problems of Route Optimization in MIPv6,” In Computational Intelligence & Communication Technology (CICT). IEEE International Conference on 323-329, 2015.

[4] P. A. Shah, et al., “A TOTP-based enhanced route optimization procedure for mobile IPv6 to reduce handover delay and signaling overhead,” The Scientific World Journal, doi:10.1155/2014/506028, 2014.

[5] R. Kong, H. Zhou, “Analysis and improvement of Return Routability procedure for network mobility,” In Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM 2006. International Conference on 1-4. doi:10.1109/WiCOM.2006.306. 2006.

[6] R. Radhakrishnan, et al., “A Robust Return Routability Procedure for Mobile IPv6,” International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security (IJCSNS), 8, 243-240, 2008.

[7] A. Z. M. Shahriar, et al., “Route optimization in network mobility: Solutions, classification, comparison, and future research directions,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 12(1). doi:10.1109/SURV.2010.020110.00087, 2010.

[8] J. Arkko, et al., “Enhanced route optimization for mobile IPv6”, No. RFC 4866, 2007.

[9] S. Gupta, S. Gambhir, et al., “An improved architecture for minimizing handover latency in MIPv6,” In Methods and Models in Computer Science (ICM2CS), International Conference on 106-111. doi: 10.1109/ICM2CS.2010.5706728, 2010.

[10] M. O. Khan, S. H. Andresen, “Pros and cons of route optimization schemes for network mobility and their implications on handovers,” IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, (6), 622-632, doi: 10.1002/tee.21781, 2012.

[11] A. Cabellos-Aparicio, J. Domingo-Pascual, “Mobility Agents: Avoiding the Signaling of Route Optimization on Large Servers,” In Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications PIMRC, IEEE 18th International Symposium on IEEE. pp. 1-5, doi:10.1109/PIMRC.2007.4394606, 2007.

[12] D. Le, J. Chang, “Tunneling-based route optimization for mobile IPv6,” In Wireless Communications, Networking and Information Security (WCNIS), IEEE International Conference on 509-513, doi:10.1109/WCINS.2010.5544140, 2010.

[13] D. Le, et al., “Evaluation of mobile IPv6 based on an OPNET model,” In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for Young Computer Scientists (ICYCS’05), 238-244. 2005.

[14] F. A. T. Al-Saedi, M. M. Asem, “Performance Study of Mobile IPv6 Using OPNET,” International Journal of Engineering, 3(8), 549-557, 2014.

[15] R. Meng, et al. “IP mobility enhancements for MIPv6 and PMIPv6,” Tenth International Conference on Mobile Computing and Ubiquitous Network (ICMU), Toyama, pp. 1-6. doi: 10.23919/ICMU.2017.8330100, 2017.

[16] M. Hata, et al. “SDN Based End-to-End Inter-Domain Routing Mechanism for Mobility Management and Its Evaluation.” Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) vol. 18, 12 4228, doi: 10.3390/s18124228, 2018.

[17] K. K. Ofosu, et al., “Performance Evaluation of Mobile IP on Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Using Ns2.” Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT), 15-27. 2018.

[18] S. K. Hussein, “Performance Evaluation of Mobile Internet Protocol Version 6.” International Journal of Management, Information, Technology and Engineering (BEST: IJMITE), Vol. 4, Issue 3, p. 35-52, 2016.

[19] A. O, Alwer, “Performance Evaluation for MIPv6 IN Pure IPv6 Networks vs. 6 TO 4 IP Mechanism Networks using OPNET.” International Journal of Electronics, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering (IJEMME), Volume 6, Issue 4, p. 1317- 1326, 2016.

[20] O. Erunika, et al., “Performance evaluation of host-based mobility management schemes in the internet,” In Mobile Computing and Ubiquitous Networking (ICMU), Eighth International Conference on IEEE 173-178, doi:10.1109/ICMU.2015.7061062, 2015.

[21] K. M. Al-Farabi, M. H. Kabir, “Reducing packet loss in Mobile IPv6,” In Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT), 14th International Conference on IEEE 38-43 doi:10.1109/ICCITechn.2011.6164852, 2011.

[22] W. A. A. Alsalihy, M. I. Younis, “Security verification of the return routability protocol by Murphi,” Scientific Research and Essays, 7(21), 986-1996 doi:10.5897/SRE10.1211, 2012.

[23] A. Dhraief, A. Belghith, “An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Mobile IPv6 Handover on Transport Protocols,” Smart CR, 2(1), 1-17, doi:10.6029/smartcr.2012.01.001, 2012.

[24] A. Encarnacao, G. Bayer, “Mobile IPv6 Binding Update-Return Routability Procedure,” 2008.