Evaluation of Route Optimization Method in Mobile IPv6 Networks

Abstract

With Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) protocol support, a host can move from its home network or one network to another. Tunneling and delay due to rectangular routing are one of the key factors of optimizing a route from Correspondent Node (CN) to Mobile Node (MN). However, during handover, packet delivery ratio due to the mobility of MN should be considered too. This paper investigated Return Routability Procedure (RRP) as a route optimization method for MIPv6 Networks in terms of Packets Received, Tunneling and Route Optimization Traffic control received and Overhead. The result showed that video conference received is the same as if no route optimization method was applied. However, comparing tunneled control traffics reduced with route optimization control traffic introduced is negligible. Instead, 0.02% more sum of the tunnel and Route Optimization Overhead (ROO) were added compared to the sum of tunneled and ROO introduced when no route optimization method was applied.

Keywords

• MIPv6,RRP,CN,MN,Tunneling,MIPv6 Routing Optimization

References

1. [1] D. Johnson, et al., “Mobility support in IPv6,” No. RFC 3775, 2004.
2. [2] C. Perkins, et al., “Mobility support in IPv6,” No. RFC 6275, 2011.
3. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [8] J. Arkko, et al., “Enhanced route optimization for mobile IPv6”, No. RFC 4866, 2007.

9. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [15] 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.
16. [16] 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.
17. [17] 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.
18. [18] A. Encarnacao, G. Bayer, “Mobile IPv6 Binding Update-Return Routability Procedure,” 2008.
19. [19] 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.