End-to-End and Redirection Delays in IP Based Mobility

  • Jon-Olov Vatn
Chapter
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 51)

Abstract

Using the Internet as an infrastructure for mobile, real-time communication is an attractive goal as well as a challenging task. The non-optimal routing inherent in several proposed IP mobility schemes makes it harder to meet the requirement of low end-to-end delay. Mobile users may also perceive decreased performance when a handover between to access points is performed. In this study, common IP based mobility support schemes are evaluated according to their impact on the end-to-end delay and their IP level handover performance. Of the schemes considered, Mobile IPv6 [10] shows the best characteristics. Mobile IPv4 with route optimization [11] is also promising, however, some enhancements are suggested.

Key words

IP Mobility end-to-end delay handover routing 
Download to read the full chapter text

References

  1. [1]
    J. Bound and C. Perkins. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6–14.txt>, February 1999. Internet draft. Work in progress.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. Droms. RFC 2131: Dynamic host configuration protocol, March 1997.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Ferguson and D. Senie. RFC 2267: Network ingress filtering: Defeating denial of service attacks which employ IP source address spoofing, January 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Glass, T. Hiller, S. Jacobs, and C. Perkins. Mobile IP Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Requirements <draft-ietfmobileip-aaa-regs-03.txt>, March 2000. Internet draft. Work in progress.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T). Recommendation G. 114, Transmission Systems and Media, General Characteristics of International Telephone Connections and International Telephone Circuits, One-Way Transmission Time, February 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. Montenegro. RFC 2344: Reverse tunneling for mobile IP, May 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Perkins. Mobile-IP Local Registration with Hierarchical Foreign Agents <draft-perkins-mobileip-hierfa-00.txt>, February 1996. Internet draft. Work in progress.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    C. Perkins. RFC 2002: IP mobility support, October 1996.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Perkins. RFC 2003: IP encapsulation within IP, October 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    C. Perkins and D. Johnson. Mobility Support in IPv6 <draftietf-mobileip-ipv6–09.txt>, October 1999. Internet draft. Work in progress.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. Perkins and D. Johnson. Route optimization in mobile ip <draftietf-mobileip-optim-08.txt>, February 1999. Internet draft. Work in progress.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Thomson and T. Narten. RFC 2462: IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration, December 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J-O Vatn. Long Random Wait Times for Getting a Care-of Address are a Danger to Mobile Multimedia. In 1999 IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Multimedia Communications (MoMuC’99),November 1999. San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J-O Vatn and G.Q. Maguire Jr. The effect of using co-located care-of addresses on macro handover latency. In 14th Nordic Teletraffic Seminar,August 1998. Lyngby, Denmark.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon-Olov Vatn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Teleinformatics Royal Institute of TechnologyKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations