04-06-2012, 11:15 AM
MOBILITY SUPPORT IN WIRELESS INTERNET
[attachment=24083]
ABSTRACT
The tremendous advancement and popularity
of wireless access technologies necessitates the
convergence of multimedia (audio, video, and
text) services on a unified global (seamless) network
infrastructure. Circuit-switched proprietary
telecommunication networks are evolving toward
more cost-effective and uniform packet-switched
networks such as those based on IP. However,
one of the key challenges for the deployment of
such wireless Internet infrastructure is to efficiently
manage user mobility. To provide seamless
services to mobile users, several protocols
have been proposed over the years targeting different
layers in the network protocol stack.
INTRODUCTION
The popularity of the Internet, and rapid development
and acceptance of wireless communication
have led to the inception and development of the
wireless Internet infrastructure with a goal to provide
an end-to-end IP platform supporting realtime
and non-real-time multimedia services.
Several standards bodies such as the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and Third-Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) are working
on the specifications of an all-IP wireless network
that will allow roaming users access to integrated
data, voice, and multimedia services. The introduction
of limited range wireless networks such as
IEEE 802.11-based wireless LAN has also added
momentum to this development by providing
high-speed wireless access to the wired Internet.
DESIGN ISSUES OF MOBILITY PROTOCOLS
Existing mobility protocols have mainly been
designed for network, transport, and application
layers, and the majority of studies refer to the
inherent mobility support provided by the wireless
network as the subnetwork layer mobility.
We will evaluate the protocols in each layer for
their merits and demerits regarding such important
design issues as the scope of mobility, the
set of applications supported, and the objective
of mobility protocols.
THE NETWORK LAYER
Network layer mobility finds its value exactly
where the subnetwork layer mobility falls short
with respect to the scope of operation. The principal
goal has been to provide network-level
transparency. Specifically, in the Internet, hosts
are identified solely with their network-level
point of attachment (e.g., IP address). Thus,
when a network layer mobility protocol is operating
in a TCP/IP-based network, the upper layers
do not have to bother about IP address
change due to host mobility. Although the notion
of network layer mobility started with the Mobile
IP proposal [1], a host of different network layer
mobility protocols have been proposed, each
attempting to improve performance with respect
to certain parameters.
CONCLUSION
In this article we have classified the existing
mobility protocols based on their layer of operation
in the protocol stack. We have identified
the salient features of each layer of operation in
perspective to the other layers, which gives a
comprehensive view of the current state of the
mobility protocols with their efficiencies and
drawbacks. We have also analyzed the protocols
in each layer for their handoff latency and signaling
overhead, and SIP has been found to be
marginally worse than the lower-layer protocols.
However, considering all the virtues of the application
layer protocol, it is expected to satisfy
most of the application requirements in the nextgeneration
wireless Internet.
[attachment=24083]
ABSTRACT
The tremendous advancement and popularity
of wireless access technologies necessitates the
convergence of multimedia (audio, video, and
text) services on a unified global (seamless) network
infrastructure. Circuit-switched proprietary
telecommunication networks are evolving toward
more cost-effective and uniform packet-switched
networks such as those based on IP. However,
one of the key challenges for the deployment of
such wireless Internet infrastructure is to efficiently
manage user mobility. To provide seamless
services to mobile users, several protocols
have been proposed over the years targeting different
layers in the network protocol stack.
INTRODUCTION
The popularity of the Internet, and rapid development
and acceptance of wireless communication
have led to the inception and development of the
wireless Internet infrastructure with a goal to provide
an end-to-end IP platform supporting realtime
and non-real-time multimedia services.
Several standards bodies such as the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and Third-Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) are working
on the specifications of an all-IP wireless network
that will allow roaming users access to integrated
data, voice, and multimedia services. The introduction
of limited range wireless networks such as
IEEE 802.11-based wireless LAN has also added
momentum to this development by providing
high-speed wireless access to the wired Internet.
DESIGN ISSUES OF MOBILITY PROTOCOLS
Existing mobility protocols have mainly been
designed for network, transport, and application
layers, and the majority of studies refer to the
inherent mobility support provided by the wireless
network as the subnetwork layer mobility.
We will evaluate the protocols in each layer for
their merits and demerits regarding such important
design issues as the scope of mobility, the
set of applications supported, and the objective
of mobility protocols.
THE NETWORK LAYER
Network layer mobility finds its value exactly
where the subnetwork layer mobility falls short
with respect to the scope of operation. The principal
goal has been to provide network-level
transparency. Specifically, in the Internet, hosts
are identified solely with their network-level
point of attachment (e.g., IP address). Thus,
when a network layer mobility protocol is operating
in a TCP/IP-based network, the upper layers
do not have to bother about IP address
change due to host mobility. Although the notion
of network layer mobility started with the Mobile
IP proposal [1], a host of different network layer
mobility protocols have been proposed, each
attempting to improve performance with respect
to certain parameters.
CONCLUSION
In this article we have classified the existing
mobility protocols based on their layer of operation
in the protocol stack. We have identified
the salient features of each layer of operation in
perspective to the other layers, which gives a
comprehensive view of the current state of the
mobility protocols with their efficiencies and
drawbacks. We have also analyzed the protocols
in each layer for their handoff latency and signaling
overhead, and SIP has been found to be
marginally worse than the lower-layer protocols.
However, considering all the virtues of the application
layer protocol, it is expected to satisfy
most of the application requirements in the nextgeneration
wireless Internet.