This paper presents a novel analytical approach to evaluate the signaling load of Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6). Previous analytical approaches for IP mobility management have not provided a complete and general framework for the performance analysis; no consideration of either periodic binding refresh cost or extra packet tunneling cost from the viewpoint of IP mobility management, and no in-depth investigation with respect to various system parameters. In this paper, according to the proposed analytical approach, we derive the location update costs (i.e., the sum of binding update costs and binding refresh costs), packet tunneling costs, inside-domain signaling costs, outside-domain signaling costs, and total signaling costs, which are generated by a mobile node (MN) during its average domain residence time in case MIPv6 or HMIPv6 is deployed under the same network architecture, respectively. Moreover, based on these derived costs, we evaluate the impacts of various system parameters on the signaling costs generated by an MN in MIPv6 and HMIPv6. The aim of this paper is not to determine which protocol performs better, but evaluate the performance that can be expected for each protocol under the various conditions, broaden our deep understanding of the various parameters that may influence the performance, and provide insight for the deployment of the two protocols.
The copyright of the original papers published on this site belongs to IEICE. Unauthorized use of the original or translated papers is prohibited. See IEICE Provisions on Copyright for details.
Copy
Ki-Sik KONG, MoonBae SONG, KwangJin PARK, Chong-Sun HWANG, "A Comparative Analysis on the Signaling Load of Mobile IPv6 and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6: Analytical Approach" in IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information,
vol. E89-D, no. 1, pp. 139-149, January 2006, doi: 10.1093/ietisy/e89-d.1.139.
Abstract: This paper presents a novel analytical approach to evaluate the signaling load of Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6). Previous analytical approaches for IP mobility management have not provided a complete and general framework for the performance analysis; no consideration of either periodic binding refresh cost or extra packet tunneling cost from the viewpoint of IP mobility management, and no in-depth investigation with respect to various system parameters. In this paper, according to the proposed analytical approach, we derive the location update costs (i.e., the sum of binding update costs and binding refresh costs), packet tunneling costs, inside-domain signaling costs, outside-domain signaling costs, and total signaling costs, which are generated by a mobile node (MN) during its average domain residence time in case MIPv6 or HMIPv6 is deployed under the same network architecture, respectively. Moreover, based on these derived costs, we evaluate the impacts of various system parameters on the signaling costs generated by an MN in MIPv6 and HMIPv6. The aim of this paper is not to determine which protocol performs better, but evaluate the performance that can be expected for each protocol under the various conditions, broaden our deep understanding of the various parameters that may influence the performance, and provide insight for the deployment of the two protocols.
URL: https://global.ieice.org/en_transactions/information/10.1093/ietisy/e89-d.1.139/_p
Copy
@ARTICLE{e89-d_1_139,
author={Ki-Sik KONG, MoonBae SONG, KwangJin PARK, Chong-Sun HWANG, },
journal={IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information},
title={A Comparative Analysis on the Signaling Load of Mobile IPv6 and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6: Analytical Approach},
year={2006},
volume={E89-D},
number={1},
pages={139-149},
abstract={This paper presents a novel analytical approach to evaluate the signaling load of Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6). Previous analytical approaches for IP mobility management have not provided a complete and general framework for the performance analysis; no consideration of either periodic binding refresh cost or extra packet tunneling cost from the viewpoint of IP mobility management, and no in-depth investigation with respect to various system parameters. In this paper, according to the proposed analytical approach, we derive the location update costs (i.e., the sum of binding update costs and binding refresh costs), packet tunneling costs, inside-domain signaling costs, outside-domain signaling costs, and total signaling costs, which are generated by a mobile node (MN) during its average domain residence time in case MIPv6 or HMIPv6 is deployed under the same network architecture, respectively. Moreover, based on these derived costs, we evaluate the impacts of various system parameters on the signaling costs generated by an MN in MIPv6 and HMIPv6. The aim of this paper is not to determine which protocol performs better, but evaluate the performance that can be expected for each protocol under the various conditions, broaden our deep understanding of the various parameters that may influence the performance, and provide insight for the deployment of the two protocols.},
keywords={},
doi={10.1093/ietisy/e89-d.1.139},
ISSN={1745-1361},
month={January},}
Copy
TY - JOUR
TI - A Comparative Analysis on the Signaling Load of Mobile IPv6 and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6: Analytical Approach
T2 - IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information
SP - 139
EP - 149
AU - Ki-Sik KONG
AU - MoonBae SONG
AU - KwangJin PARK
AU - Chong-Sun HWANG
PY - 2006
DO - 10.1093/ietisy/e89-d.1.139
JO - IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information
SN - 1745-1361
VL - E89-D
IS - 1
JA - IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information
Y1 - January 2006
AB - This paper presents a novel analytical approach to evaluate the signaling load of Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6). Previous analytical approaches for IP mobility management have not provided a complete and general framework for the performance analysis; no consideration of either periodic binding refresh cost or extra packet tunneling cost from the viewpoint of IP mobility management, and no in-depth investigation with respect to various system parameters. In this paper, according to the proposed analytical approach, we derive the location update costs (i.e., the sum of binding update costs and binding refresh costs), packet tunneling costs, inside-domain signaling costs, outside-domain signaling costs, and total signaling costs, which are generated by a mobile node (MN) during its average domain residence time in case MIPv6 or HMIPv6 is deployed under the same network architecture, respectively. Moreover, based on these derived costs, we evaluate the impacts of various system parameters on the signaling costs generated by an MN in MIPv6 and HMIPv6. The aim of this paper is not to determine which protocol performs better, but evaluate the performance that can be expected for each protocol under the various conditions, broaden our deep understanding of the various parameters that may influence the performance, and provide insight for the deployment of the two protocols.
ER -