Advertisement

Practical Evaluation of a Network Mobility Solution

  • Antonio de la Oliva
  • Carlos Jesús Bernardos
  • María Calderón
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 196)

Abstract

As the demand of ubiquitous Internet access and the current trend of all-IP communications keep growing, the necessity of a protocol that provides mobility management increases. The IETF has specified protocols to provide mobility support to individual nodes and networks. The Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support protocol is designed for providing mobility at IP level to complete networks, allowing a Mobile Network to change its point of attachment to the Internet, while maintaining ongoing sessions of the nodes of the network. All the mobility management is done by the mobile router whilst the nodes of the network are not even aware of the mobility.

The main aim of this article is evaluating the performance of the NEMO Basic Support protocol by using our implementation. We also discuss the design of an implementation of the NEMO Basic Support protocol.

Keywords

Network Mobility NEMO experimental evaluation 

References

  1. Andersen, S., Telio, A. Duric, Astrom, H., Hagen, R., Kleijn, W., and Linden, J. (2004). Internet Low Bitrate Codec. RFC 3951.Google Scholar
  2. Conta, A. and Deering, S. (1995). Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6). RFC 1885.Google Scholar
  3. Devarapalli, Vijay, Wakikawa, Ryuji, Petrescu, Alexandria, and Thubert, Pascal (2004). Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol. RFC 3963.Google Scholar
  4. Dhandapani, Gowri and Sundaresan, Anupama (2005). Netlink Sockets, Overview. http://qos.ittc.ukans.edu/netlink/html/.Google Scholar
  5. Droms, R. (1997). Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol.Google Scholar
  6. Ernst, T. and Lach, H-Y. (2004). Network Mobility Support Terminology. draft-ietf-NEMO-terminology-02.txt.Google Scholar
  7. Hinden, R. and Deering, S. (1998). IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture. RFC 2373.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, D., Perkins, C, and J. Arkko (2004). Mobility Support in IPv6. RFC 3775.Google Scholar
  9. McCreary, S. and K. Claffy (2000). Trends in wide area IP traffic patterns-A view from Ames Internet Exchange. CAIDA, Tech. Rep.Google Scholar
  10. Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and Simpson, W. (1998). Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6). RFC 2461.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio de la Oliva
    • 1
  • Carlos Jesús Bernardos
    • 1
  • María Calderón
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Carlos III de MadridLeganés MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations