Performance Evaluation of Advance TIMIP With Enhanced Handover

International Journal of Engineering, Management & Sciences (IJEMS) ISSN-2348 –3733, Volume-2, Issue-5, May 2015

Performance Evaluation of Advance TIMIP With Enhanced Handover Amit Kumar Mishra, Sachin Sharma

 Abstract—User mobility throughout the global Internet has launched a successful wireless LAN market and created the need for new Internet architecture. A number of Mobility protocols like MIP, hierarchical MIP, and cellular IP, HAWAII have been proposed for these communications featuring different type of mobility properties.

Advance TIMIP protocol is proposed with enhancements over with the base protocol TIMIP. The missing paging and routing cache features have been implemented to the idle terminal support. Security features are provided by embedding the HMAC-MD5 message digest algorithm. A set of features from various earlier protocols have been combined to form this protocol, which provides better efficiency and better transparency than other alternative solutions, by adding featuring seamless handovers and optimal routing. In addition, various multimedia support, paging and security features are provided. Simulation comparing ATIMIP with the other micro mobility protocols were performed. In these simulations, the average results from continuous measurements were presented; featuring varying MN speeds, multiple metrics (loss ratio, throughput and delay), intra and inter-domain UDP traffic sources and the stationary results showed that ATIMIP has the best resource optimization performance for intra-domain.

HAWAII would also be able to share such good performance with intra-domain traffic, but suffers from long routing paths due to its incremental handover operations. It was deduced that CIP and HMIP have the worst behavior, as all packets are forced to pass through the GW. The protocol has also been tested for the various traffic types as video traffic, VoIP traffic, and CBR sources and found to be capable of handling various multimedia applications with user specified requirements. The former solution is formally specified with state machines. Advance TIMIP will be evaluated and compared to alternative solutions via simulation studies in the NS2 simulator.

Keywords— Advance TIMIP, Semisoft Handoff, Routing Cache mapping, IP Legacy stacks.

I. INTRODUCTION Recently, handheld devices are becoming the predominant choice for users due to the increasingly improved mobile wireless networks, applications and services. Low-cost affordability of portable devices such as palmtops and cell phones and their extensive usage are inspiring service providers to sustain faultless user mobility that is continuous connectivity of their communication/computing devices (referred to as mobile nodes, MNs) as they move either within a particular network or across dissimilar networks.

Manuscript received May 18, 2015.

Amit Kumar Mishra,, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Rajasthan Institute of Engineering & Technology, Jaipur,India Sachin Sharma, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Rajasthan Institute of Engineering & Technology, Jaipur,India

93

A. Mobility Classification of Protocols A network typically cover up a large physical area (or Executive domain) consisting of numerous sub networks (subnets). Mobility of an MN in a network can be roughly classified into three categories: 1. Micro mobility (intra subnet mobility): movement inside a subnet 2. Macro mobility (intra domain mobility): movement across different subnets within a single domain 3. Global mobility (inter domain mobility): movement across different domains.

Various Mobile IP Protocols MIP The protocol considers that hosts are reached using two global complementary addresses, to solve the classical “identifier” vs. “locator” problem that IP addresses have [3-4].The Home Address is a unique IP address used by the correspondent nodes to contact the MN in all locations, serving as a constant identifier; the Care Of address is a second IP address that reflects the actual MN’s localization in the visited networks, changing each time it moves between networks and being used by MIP as a temporary MN locator [4]. Thus, the main objective of the MIP protocol is to redirect the packets received in the Home Network to the current Visited Network, by keeping the MN’s Care Of Address updated as the MN moves between networks. hMIP A recent MIPv4 extension called hierarchical MIP (hMIP)[11]was proposed to extend the MIPv4 protocol with micro- mobility capabilities, enabling faster handovers and better scalability. For this, the single HA-FA tunnel is extended to a hierarchy of FAs and the MNs will manage multiple hierarchical Care Of addresses, one per hierarchical level. CIPv4/v6 The Cellular IP (CIP) [5] protocol was one of the first approaches to provide a mobility support more efficient than the one provided by MIP, complementing it in an independent way Closer to the terminal; thus, this routing chain is able to identify the MN’s location inside the network. At the top of the tree, a special Gateway (GW) node contains routing entries for all network’s MNs, being also the unique point of attachment to the outside (thus excluding multiple additional border routers). At the tree leaves, the APs provide connectivity to the MNs, emitting special CIP beacons to the wireless medium.

HAWAII the Handoff-Aware Wireless Access Internet Infrastructure protocol is an alternative proposal that transparently extends MIP with micro-mobility support. An important difference from CIP is that the terminals are only required to implement a modified MIP client, as the protocol provides micro-mobility transparently. HAWAII is transparent to mobile IP. A mobile node moving in a

www.alliedjournals.com

Performance Evaluation of Advance TIMIP With Enhanced Handover HAWAII-administered domain will not need to change its COA, and no communication with the home agent is required.

Two special signaling packets are introduced, power-up update and handoff update [6]. For this, a similar division of domains and hierarchy of nodes are established, forming a logical tree with a Root Gateway taking as the sole point of attachment to the outside, which again precludes support for multiple mobile-aware border routers. The tree leaves contain the APs, which implement a MIP compatible interface to the wireless interface on the form of a FA. To achieve an even more efficient data routing service, due to the fact that it is able to send the packets between the domain’s agents directly.

Such optimal routing scheme, which is only supported earlier by the macro-mobility’s MIP protocol, could be used to further lower the end-to-end delay. It decouple the data and control paths, by enabling the bypass of data traffic through the single GW in inter-domain traffic scenarios, providing load balancing. It divides the cell area into various paging areas, which reduces the location updates and saves battery life time II. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT ATIMIP protocol will be compared with the original TIMIP model, and with the alternative micro-mobility proposals CIP, HAWAII and HMIP and the macro-mobility standard, MIP. From the set of CIMS options, a sample subset was selected: the CIP hard-handover option, due to the fact that L2 hard-handovers are the ones used in real 802.11 networks and HAWAII Multiple-Stream-Forwarding (MSF), due to the usage of standard routing tables without interface information, and because the MN is able to listen/transmit to only one base station at one moment.

Figure1: The Simulation environment

III. DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR ADVANCE TIMIP Advance TIMIP is an Advance protocol for Terminal independent Mobile IP principles for mobility management given as: paging, security, idle terminal support yet implements them around the TIMIP paradigm. Advance TIMIP access networks use the same network infrastructure and require overlay network deployment over the network to provide the various mobility services to the legacy IP stacks.

94

This whole transparency feature is provided by the surrogate MIP (sMIP) proposed by enhanced TIMIP. An important aspect of ATIMIP design is simplicity and minimum use of explicit signaling, enabling the protocol’s low cost implementation. An overview of ATIMIP access networks and discusses support is presented by us for routing, paging, handoff, and security in these networks.

A. ALGORITHM MIP.H 1. Add two type of MIP packets in the MIPRegType enumeration: MIPT_ BU, MIPT _BW MIPT_BU is the type indicator of Binding Update message; MIPT_ BW is the type indicator of Binding Warning message.

2. Add two function headers in the header file a.void MIPBSAgent::send_bu (int dest, int haddr, int ha, int coa); This function is used in MIPBSAgent to send out Binding Update message. b.void MIPMHAgent::send_bw (int dest, int haddr, int ha, int coa); This function is used in MIPMHAgent to send out BindingWarning message.

MIP.CC 3. Modify the MIPEncapsulator::recv (Packet* p, Handler *h) function. a. Enable the MIPEncapsulator to send out Binding Update message when the home Agent receives packets destined to the mobile node away from home. b. Save the address of the correspondent node and the current care-of address of the mobile node for later usage. c. Send out the Binding Update message in MIPEncapsulator is to call a TCL function, which eventually invokes the send bu method of MIPBSAgent.

MIP-REG.CC 4. Modify the MIPBSAgent::recv (Packet* p, Handler *) function.

Modify this function; enable the MIPBSAgent to handle Binding Update message and BindingWarning message. a.Handling Binding Update message When the MIPBSAgent receives the Binding Update message, it stores the care-of address and then enables a MIPEncapsulator to tunnel the packets directly to the care-of address bypassing the home agent. b. Handling BindingWarning message When the MIPBS Agent receives the Binding Warning message, if it is the Home Agent of the Mobile node, then it retrieves the address of the correspondent node and sends a Binding Update message to it. If it is not the Home Agent, it just forwards the BindingWarning message to the Home Agent of the mobile node.

5. Modify the MIPBSAgent::command (int argc, const char*const* argv) function. Provide the interface to OTcl modules, to send out the Binding Update message 6. Add the MIPBSAgent::send _bu (int daddr, int haddr, int ha, int coa) function to send the Binding Update message.

7.

Modify the MIPMHAgent::recv (Packet* p, Handler

www.alliedjournals.com

International Journal of Engineering, Management & Sciences (IJEMS) ISSN-2348 –3733, Volume-2, Issue-5, May 2015 *) function. the border nodes 3, 21 represent the Access Network Router 8. Modify this function to send out the Binding Warning while node 0 represents the Access Network Gateway (ANG). message when the mobile node receives the registration reply message from FA/HA. 9. Add the MIPMHAgent::send bw (int daddr, int haddr, int coa) function.

Function to send the BindingWarning message.

NS-MIP.TCL 10. Add the MIPEncapsulator instproc setCH (mhaddr, chaddr) function.

This OTcl function is to store the address of the correspondent host in a hash table, indexed by the mobile node’s home address.

11. Add the MIPEncapsulator instproc setCOA (mhaddr, coa) function.

This OTcl function is to store the mobile node’s care-of address in a hash table, indexed by the mobile node’s home address.

12. Add the MIPEncapsulator instproc send_bu (daddr, Figure2: NAM output of ATIMIP haddr, coa) function.

This OTcl function is to send out the Binding Update message by calling the V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION MIPBSAgent::send_bu function.

Before sending out the Binding Update message, it should The various protocols defined and implemented here are check whether the same Binding Update message has already given below as per the applicability areas: been sent out or not.

Mobile IP: This protocol is applied for movement of the 13. Add the MIPEncapsulator instproc nodeptr () mobile nodes in heterogeneous networks as long as IP address function. This OTcl function is to return the hierarchical remains the same. address of the node where the Cellular IP: Cellular IP is designed to support migrating MIPEncapsulator locates. hosts frequently, with appropriate setting of protocol 14. Add the Agent/MIPBS instproc getCOA (mhaddr); parameters, it can be also efficiently serve rarely moving or This OTcl function is to return the care-of address, indexed even static hosts. So these are used only for single IP domains by the mobile node’s home address. systems.

15. Add the Agent/MIPBS instproc getCH (mhaddr) Handoff-Aware Wireless Access Internet Infrastructure function.

(HAWAII) protocol: Used for both Micro mobility as well as This OTcl function is to return the address of the for micro mobility but for lesser area movement than Mobile correspondent node, indexed by the mobile node’s home IP. address.

Advance TIMIP: This is the protocol proposed by this 16. Modify the Agent/MIPBS instproc encap-route thesis work which improves the mobility protocols as: (mhaddr, coa, lifetime) 1. This protocol provides security (authentication, Hashing This is the main OTcl function to enable the mechanism) as against MIP. MIPEncapsulator to encapsulate the packets. When adding 2. Includes idle terminal host, paging support as compared the encapsulation route, it should first check whether the same to MIP. route has been added or not, so to avoid redundant route.

3. Provides Micro & Macro Mobility support as combination of MIP and CIP up to larger areas than HAWAII protocol.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF ATIMIP 4. Provides transparency and efficiency for legacy networks and for different IP version.

Nodes 34 and external node CN_0 are communicating through node 0 and as the node 34 moving the handover takes place with a rate of 30 handover/min(here the various speed A. Route optimization for mobile IP variation are also investigated for the various protocols).when The figure provides the comparison between the the handover takes place like the communication takes place Hierarchical MIP protocol with and without route through the TIMIP agent 26 instead of agent 25,in the time of optimization end to end delay comparisons. Here the tree registration, detection and execution of the mobile node to the based routing has been replaced with the direct path routing new agent, the packet which were in the air through the path procedure which uses the routing entries for the MN agent 25 are stored through the delay buffers till the handover communication of those hosts that are earlier being used for takes place. This test was designed through the 10Mbps link. the communication and thus the proceeding communication However the various links capacities have been varied to see can take place through the help of the various routes available how bandwidth affects the various protocols throughput. Here

95

www.alliedjournals.com

Performance Evaluation of Advance TIMIP With Enhanced Handover in the network and thus optimizing the congestion, faster communication and minimizing the packet delays.

TABLE 1: MOBILE IP WITH AND WITHOUT ROUTE OPTIMAZATION Time End to end End to end Delay Delay (Without Route (With Route Optimization) Optimization) 20 0.7 0.7 40

0.67

0.67

60

0.665

0.77

80

0.665

0.79

location where they will be dropped and by having simpler handover mechanisms, both ATIMIP and CIP show the lowest degradation in the highest load scenarios.

Figure4: Comparison of the Data Drop Ratio for various protocols C. Handover Latency Handover Latency =∑ (reception timestamp first packet received via the new AR reception timestamp last packet received via the old AR) / number of handovers.

Figure5: Discrete value comparison of various protocols

Figure3: Comparison of the mobile IP protocols with and without route optimization UDP throughput ratio improvements have outperformed all others while Handover latency has a huge improvement over eTIMIP. TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF VARIOUS MOBILITY & UDP SERVICE PARAMETERS Out of Total UDP Ctrl Drop Handover Protocol order Loss Through Load Ratio Latency put Ratio Ratio ATIMIP 4.67

14

0

14

Ratio 762.6

57.42

TIMIP

4.67

31

0

31

750.8

113.59

MIP

5

72

0

72

608

245.88

HMIP

5

66

0

66

624

231.80

CIP

5

16

0

16

757.3

64.03

10

5

15

744

110.5

HAWAII 3.67

UDP Throughput Ratio = ((Number of accepted ordered bytes passed to the application*100)/ measurement time)/ Theoretical maximum

Figure6: The Various Traffic Comparisons: UDP Throughput Ratio D. TCP Throughput Ratio In case of TCP traffic the MIP provides the maximum throughput as compared to the other protocols while ATIMIP leads the protocols providing the smooth and faster handovers.

Figure7: TCP throughput ratio comparison

B. Data Drop Ratio The protocols have much higher drop ratios even with the queuing buffers. This happens because, even though the routers have very large queue sizes to try to prevent packet losses, such queuing greatly delays the handover update, resulting in more packets being forwarded to the previous

96

E. Control Load All protocols have a similar number of update control packets forwarding, because all of them use a single update message that is forwarded, on average, 5 times per handover for all protocols. HAWAII has a slight lower value, as the update packets are sent directly to the previous AR, bypassing

www.alliedjournals.com

International Journal of Engineering, Management & Sciences (IJEMS) ISSN-2348 –3733, Volume-2, Issue-5, May 2015 the tree. The new AR stores the values of the (Mobile Host topologies. In case of inter domain traffic HMIP has the worst MAC, TR Agent address (the leaf hierarchical Agent required results, as all handovers require an update to the GW. The to reach the new AR)). results show that for low speed movement utilizations, the micro-mobility protocols only feature small performance differences between themselves; however, in high speed movement scenarios, such differences are greatly amplified and can distinguish the protocols.

REFERENCES Figure8: Control load comparison F. Gateway Load Except ATIMIP/TIMIP protocols, other protocol gives the same results, as the same amount of data traffic is always required to pass through the GW. While in case of TIMIP and HAWAII in inter domain case, protocols send the internal traffic directly in the lowest parts of the tree, excluding the tree. Using command grep ^r ATIMIP.tr|grep MAC|grep cbr|grep ^ 0.

Figure9: Gateway Load Comparison G. Comparison for BE traffic Best effort traffic is used for VOIP communication where delay is required to be minimized while the minimal packet losses may be ignored. The graph shows the jitter for various protocols for BE traffic which shows the ATIMIP provides the smooth and lesser delay variation so it is most suited protocol for VOIP communication.

[1]P. Bhagwat, C. Perkins, and S.Tripathi, “Network Layer Mobility: An Architecture and Survey,” IEEE Pers. Commun., vol. 3, pp. 54–64, June 1996.

[2]I. F. Akyildiz, “Mobility Management in Current and Future Communications Networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 12, pp. 39–49, July/Aug. 1998.

[3]P. Stuckman, the GSM Evolution — Mobile Packet Data Services, Wiley, 2003.

[4]C. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support,” IETF RFC 2002, Oct. 1996.

[5]D. Johnson and C. Perkins, “Mobility Support in IPv6,” IETF draft, draft-ietf- mobileip-ipv6-15.txt, July 2001.

[6]A. T. Campbell, J.Gomez, S.Kim and C.Wan “Comparison of IP Micromobility Protocols,” IEEE Wireless Commun. pp. 72–82, Feb. 2002.

[7]H. Sollman, “Hierarchical MIPv6 Mobility Management,” IETF draft, draft-ietf- mobileip-hmipv6-05.txt, July 2001.

[8]A. T. Campbell, “Design and Performance of Cellular IP Access Networks,” IEEE Pers. Commun., Special Issueon IP-Based Mobile Telecommunications networks, K. Basu, A. T. Campbell, and A. Joseph, Guest Eds., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 42–49. Aug. 2000.

[9]S. Das, K.Basu, A.T.Campbell, and A.Joseph, Guest Eds “TeleMIP: Tele Comm. - Enhanced MIP Architecture for fast intra domain Mobility,” IEEE Pers. Commun., Special Issue on IP-Based Mobile telecommunications Networks vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 50–58.,Aug 2000.

[10] Perkins C. (Editor), "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, IETF, October 1996.

[11] A. Campbell, Andras G. Valko, Chieh – Yih Wan, “Desig Implementation and Evaluation of Cellular IP”, IEEE Personal Communications Vol 7 August 2000.

[12] R. Ramjee, T.L.Porta, L.Salagarelli, S-Thuel, K.Vardhan, “HAWAII: a domain- based approach for supporting mobility in wide-area wireless networks”, ieee/acm transactions on networking, vol. 10, no. 3, pp 396-410,june 2002.

[13] P. Estrela,A. Grilo, M. Nunes, “Terminal Independent Mobile IP”, IEEE Communication Magazine, December 2001 [14] Mills D. Network Time Protocol (Version 3), Specification, Implementation and Analysis, RFC 1305, IETF, March 1992.

[15] Rivest R., The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm, RFC 1321, IETF, and April 1992.

H. Varying Packet Sizes Here the throughput has been shown for the packet size 500 and 1000 in both the cases the ATIMIP returns the highest values.

I. Packet Losses The ATIMIP is only negligible packet losses due to the drop while out of order ratio has been minimized to zero through the use of sockets.

J. Varying Packet rates comparisons Here we have taken the packet rates variations from 50 packets/second to 100 packets/second and compared the throughput. ATIMIP outperforms every other protocol.

VI. CONCLUSION ATIMIP would have the lowest handover latency of all protocols like HAWAII, however, such benefit is cancelled in HAWAII by the introduction of out of- order UDP packets in each handover, a problem particularly evident in tree

97

www.alliedjournals.com