Wireless Communication EE5590WC

Project 1

Performance Analysis of Mobility Management in

WiMAX networks

Submitted by:
Parag Balbudhe 16087205
Sagnik Kar 16055318
Apratim Mishra 16051689

Date – 09/16/2010
Introduction: Communications technologies are developing by leaps and bounds and the evolution of
new technologies in an unending race for higher capacity have hindered the overall efficiency of the
network. In the current generation the most talked about technology is WIMAX which sits as the passage
way to 4G and promises of a ten-fold rise in capacity from the 3G networks. Now as much as capacity is
a necessity but with evolving technologies come new problems which must be addressed to make the
evolution worth the effort. The WIMAX technology which uses OFDM, Adaptive Modulation and
Coding schemes and MIMO antennas has impressed with its higher capacities and the better mobility
brought about with the implementation of MIPv6 to form an all IP wireless network. But MIPv6 like
other evolutionary efforts has its own share of problems which relate to efficiency of the network such as
handoff delays, packet losses, binding problems etc. These problems have been extensively addressed in
diverse new techniques proposed recently. In this report we attempt to review some of these ideas.

What is MIPv6?

Mobile IP version 6 is the standard followed by various broadband wireless access technologies to
support mobility management. Mobility management consists of location management and handoff
management. Location management is how the mobile node relays information about its location to the
network. A change in location is also intimated through an update called a location update. Handoff
management takes care of the handoff procedure that is when the mobile node (MN) moves from the
service of one BS (Base station) to another BS. WIMAX networks have two types of handoffs. The first
type of handoff called horizontal handoff is when a MN moves from one BS to another which is quite
common in cellular communications. The other handoff called as vertical handoff is when the MN
changes the type of technology i.e. it might move from a WLAN to a GPRS or Bluetooth environment to
maintain its connectivity to the network.

MIPv6 is the current standard set by IETF for mobile wireless networks but it has its share of issues such
as delays, packet loss due to delays and binding problems. Now the handoff operation can be split into
two layers the L2 handoff and L3 handoff. L2 handoff deals with link switching whereas L3 handoff
deals with movement detection, re-association delays and binding latencies. The MIPv6 covers the Layer
3 handover and it often overlooks the problems which might occur at Layer 2 handover. Hence there have
been many proposals to overcome these drawbacks. In this report we have reviewed some of the
techniques that claim to improve the handoff latency. Now IETF standardized two other variations to the
MIPv6 called the HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 which resolve certain issues independently and even have a
hybrid protocol which has a slightly better performance curve.

Summary 1:

Citation: “Efficient Handoff Scheme for Heterogeneous IPv6-based Wireless networks” by Makaya
and Pierre: WCNC 2007

This paper starts off with a brief idea about the IETF proposals of Hierarchical MIPv6 and Fast MIPv6
which were laid out to overcome intra-domain latency such as delays associated with location updates
(using MAP node) and reduction of handoff latency (use of L2 triggers) respectively. It then goes on to
describe the problems with these technologies i.e. HMIPv6 fails for delay sensitive traffic and FMIPv6 is
not effective at tackling packet losses and reducing the signaling overhead generated due to handoff. They
also point out the drawbacks of a Hybrid HMIPv6-FMIPv6 architecture where synchronization is a
problem. Thus the authors propose a new technique called the HPIN or Handoff Protocol for Integrated
Networks that gives QoS assurances for even real time applications.

HPIN overview: In the mobility protocols each time a MN requests for handoff it exchanges a lot of
Router exchange information messages with the Access Router which leads to considerable signaling
overhead due to the Authentication process. To avoid this overhead HPIN proposes the token based
approach. In this approach the token includes the authentication parameters which it obtains from NAR
(new access router) or MAP (mobility anchor point). Everything is handled between the token and MAP.
This leads to elimination of the triangular method of access where the HA (Home Agent) needed to be
accessed at all times when contacting MN.

HPIN protocol has certain message formats defined for handoff management viz.

 Handoff Preparation Request (HPReq) – Message sent from MN to MAP. It contains user
information, L2 information of AP/AR’s, MN’s IP address and signal strength etc.
 Handoff preparation Replay (HPRep) – Message sent from MAP to MN and it contains the list of
candidate AP/AR’s (Access Point/Access Router).
 Handoff Preparation Notification (HPN) – Message sent from MN to MAP to notify about the
impending handoff.
 New Link Attachment (NLA) – Message sent by MN to NAR to intimate itself as a node under
its area.

The protocol also discusses a couple of optional acknowledgement messages. The authors present the
working of HPIN under the different sections of a handoff procedure.

Roaming: HPIN sends HPReq/HPRep messages before L2 trigger generation and hence time consuming
operations are handled before L2 trigger generation whose timing is not very precise. Moreover validation
of new care of address is sent to MAP but not forwarded to the MN right away. The MN receives this
information after it has attached itself to the new access router. This reduces the number of messages to
be sent.

Context Transfer: The CTAR message is replaced by HPN message which contains the MN’s previous
IP address, the NAR’s IP address etc. Upon receiving the HPN the MAP sends the CTD or Context data
transfer message which contains feature contexts. This CTD message is received at NAR which may
generate a CTD Ack that is piggybacked onto the HPAck message. The NAR will send the reply only
after resource reservation has been done. Thus the problem of QOS guarantee is solved.

Binding Update Procedure: Binding updates are stored in a list called Binding Update List (BU list) and
the MN sends this list to the AR as an update whenever update time expires. Now in HPIN protocol the
MN will piggyback the BU List to the NAR when sending the NLA message. This helps avoid out-of-
band messaging.

Performance: The authors have stated that HPIN is better than both HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 protocols. As
explained above they resolve some issues with the help of HPIN and then go ahead and provide a
performance analysis of HPIN as compared to the MIPv6 protocols.
Signaling Traffic Overhead: They have explained the performance of this using a parameter called as
Session to Mobility Ration (SMR). When value of SMR is less the mobility rate is high which means that
the MN moves around a lot increasing the frequency of handoffs and hence signaling overhead. On the
other hand when SMR is high then the BU’s are less frequent reducing signaling overhead.

Handoff Latency and Packet Loss: HPIN resolves the synchronization issues which surface between the
MN and AR causing time delays. Handoff latency being directly proportional to these delays is reduced
as the delay is reduced. This ultimately leads to minimum packet loss.

Conclusion: The HPIN is a one suite protocol as it operates on its own command sets which are capable
of performing various functions throughout the handoff process. The authors have successfully provided a
comparison of the HPIN with HMIPv6, FMIPv6, and F-HMIPv6. It is clear from their analysis that HPIN
proves better for handoff latency, packet loss and signaling overhead which are the core issues with
handoff management. But it still remains to be seen whether the proposal has feasibility to be executed in
a live network where there be other issues or characters of the network that they might not have
accounted for in their simulation. But on a positive note this idea is something that has potential to be
looked at from a futuristic perspective.

Summary 2:

Citation: “An Architecture for Mobility Management in Interworked 3G Cellular and WiMAX
Networks” by Jamalipour and Munasinghe: 2008 IEEE

In this paper the author compares the differences between 3G and WiMAX networks and proposes an
interoperability of both the networks for widespread acceptance.

Fig.1 WiMAX Network Model

WiMAX System Architecture:

The WiMAX network model comprises of the following networking entities: mobile user terminal,
Access Service Network (ASN), Connectivity Services Network (CSN), user terminal including
application agents, and Mobile Subscriber Station (MSS) as seen in Fig. 1.Mobile Hosts (MH) and Base
Transceiver Stations (BTS) sit at the network edge and are responsible for over-the-air transmissions.
Further into the network, the Access Service Network (ASN) interfaces the BTS and the Connectivity
Service Network connecting it to the All-IP Core Network (CN) (As in case of WiMAX). Typically, the
ASN includes numerous BTSs with one or more ASN gateways. The ASN manages radio resources, MS
access, mobility, security and QoS. It acts as a relay for the CSN for IP address allocation and AAA
functions. The ASN gateway may host the Mobile IP Foreign Agent (FA). The CSN performs core
network functions; include policy and admission control, IP address allocation, billing and settlement. It
hosts the Mobile IP Home Agent (HA), the IP and AAA servers, and PSTN and VoIP gateways. The CSN
is also responsible for internetworking with non-WiMAX networks (e.g. 3G, DSL) and for roaming
through links to other CSNs.

Previously Proposed Ideas of Interoperability:

Throughout the past years there have been a series of proposals about different mobility management
mechanisms. In the case of WiMAX, Mobile IP (MIP) based approaches for mobility management has
been the most widely proposed. Although MIP is recognized as a good solution for mobility in mobile
WiMAX networks in general, it suffers from several drawbacks. Firstly, since it is a purely network layer
oriented solution; it is unable to solve any link layer handoff problems. Secondly, triangular routing may
result in extended delays. Thirdly, it may not deal with vertical handoffs due to discrepancies in the
mobility management techniques of a heterogeneous networking environment (e.g., UMTS CN does not
use MIP). As an arbitrator for internetworking between the UWB technology (WiMAX in this case) and
the 3G Cellular network (either UMTS or CDMA2000), the IMS is deployed. A clear advantage of using
the IMS is its ability for real-time session negotiation and management using the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP). Nevertheless, MIP also plays an important role in IP (terminal) mobility management in
the proposed approach.

Difference of architecture between 3GPP and 3GPP2:

Firstly, the issue of mobility is handled in two different ways between the two networks. 3GPP2 uses
Mobile IP (MIP) for IP mobility (i.e., terminal mobility) management and SIP for session mobility
management. The next relevant point is the flexibility of using either IPv4 or IPv6. Although it is of lesser
importance, other differences between 3GPP and 3GPP2 IMS can be briefly stated as follows: 3GPP2’s
Home AAA and its database being equivalent to 3GPP’s HSS, 3GPP2-IMS does not use PDP context
activation for P-CSCF discovery, the P-CSCF and PDSN do not need to reside in the same network, and
3GPP2- IMS defines a new position server and a position determining entity.

Proposed Interworking Architecture:

 Fig.2 Proposed Internetworking Architecture

The proposed internetworking architecture is illustrated in Fig. 2. The UMTS CN is connected to the IP
network through the GGSN, which also acts as its MIPv4 FA. Once the system acquisition is done by a
MN connected to UMTS network, the next step is to set up a data pipeline. The actual IP address
allocation for the MN is initiated by sending the MIPv4 registration request to it’s HA via the GGSN (i.e.,
the MIP-FA). The MN acts as an IMS-SIP client and sends a SIP registration message to its home system
through the P-CSCF. Once authorized, a suitable S-CSCF for the MN is assigned and its subscriber
profile is sent to the designated S-CSCF. After the activation of the PDP context and the service
registration, the MN is ready to establish a media/data/call session.

Summary 3:

Citation: “Fast Intra-Network and Cross-Layer Handover (FINCH) for WiMAX and Mobile
Internet” by Yeh, Chen, Agrawal; IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 2009

Overview: Mobile WiMAX has been designed to support users moving at vehicular speeds. In addition,
real-time services such as voice and multimedia applications are expected to be important services in
future mobile WiMAX networks. MIP is widely used in mobile WiMAX but the MIP has deficiencies
like long handover delay and long end to end latency. This paper proposes a new protocol Fast Intra-
Network and Cross-layer Handover (FINCH) for intra-domain (intra-CSN) mobility management to get
fast and efficient handovers in mobile WiMAX. FINCH is a complementary protocol to Mobile IP (MIP),
which deals with inter-domain (inter-CSN) mobility management in mobile WiMAX. FINCH can reduce
not only the handover latency but also the end-to end latency for MIP. Paging extension for FINCH is
also proposed to enhance the energy efficiency. The proposed FINCH protocol is especially suitable for
real-time services like voice and multimedia in frequent handover environment, which is important for
future mobile WiMAX networks. In addition, authors want to make FINCH acts like a generic protocol
for other IEEE 802-series standards. This is especially beneficial for the integration of heterogeneous
networks, for instance, the integration of WiMAX and Wi-Fi networks. The proposed model of FINCH is
discussed below.

PROPOSED FINCH:

Problem Statement: MS need to perform two HO procedures in two different layer i.e. MAC layer HO
for new care of address (CoA) and network layer HO to register new CoA. To get new IP address
network mainly rely on address resolution protocol. The broadcast-and-reply nature of ARP wastes
bandwidth and causes extra latency which would significantly increase the packet delivery delay.
Although cache memory can reduce the use of ARP, it is still inefficient when an MS moves frequently.
ARP may seriously waste bandwidth in a highly mobile wireless environment although both protocols
(MAC and Network layer) have been well designed; building a complete system by simply stacking up
different protocols together would result in poor performance. Therefore, this paper proposes a cross-
layer design, which considers the interactions between IP layer and link layer. The proposed paging
extension is also compatible with the energy saving mechanism.

Cross-Layer Design: Two level mobility management technique was proposed for fast HO. MIP is used
for inter-domain (inter-CSN) mobility management. The proposed FINCH is used for intra-domain (intra-
CSN) mobility management. Besides, FINCH handles the HOs in both IP layer and link layer. As a
generic protocol, FINCH deals with location update in the link layer and cooperates with the MAC HO
procedure to find IP address.

Then, FINCH uses a special table-lookup technique for both link layer and IP layer to update the location.
Based on the table, location updates in the link layer and IP layer are coupled together. Consequently,
ARP is no longer necessary that ultimately reduced reduce the overhead and latency significantly.
Because the proposed mobility management protocol is compatible with the IP layer, it can work with any
protocols and applications in higher layers. FINCH is particularly suitable for real-time applications such
as mobile voice-over-IP (VoIP), which requires fast HO.

Packet Forwarding: Packet forwarding will be done by using Forwarding Table (FT) to reduce overhead
and latency significantly which discussed in cross layer design. Therefore, to make communication
between MSs, network uses information in FT so that there should be decrease in packet delay and
effective HO.

Reducing ARP Messages: As mentioned earlier, ARP is used in WiMAX to associate the IP address in
the network layer with the MAC address in the link layer. ARP may be executed in each wired and
wireless link. However, the broadcast-and-reply nature of ARP wastes bandwidth and will cause extra
latency. It may also congest the network. Therefore, techniques such as caching the mapping of IP
address and MAC address in memory have been deployed. With the proposed FINCH, the ARP is
replaced by simply looking up the FT.

Handover and Location Update: In order to forward packets to an MS successfully, FT should be

properly updated each time when MS moves. This section discuss regarding HO and location update. Let
us assume the scenario, MS1 is communicating with BS1 and at certain time MS1 moves into new BSs
called BS2 then MS1 will wait for permission from BS2. Once it get received MS 1 will send a MAC
frame with time stamp to BS2 to update the FT entry of the MS. BS2 then replicate and forward that
MAC frame to adjacent nodes including BSs, routers, and other nodes in the same domain and again
receiving nodes replicate and forward that MAC frame to its adjacent nodes, also when previous BS
receives replicated frame, it updates the forwarding MAC address and the wireless port. So lastly MAC
frame will be discarded and FT contains current location of MS.

Fig 1. Example of address propagation in FINCH when MS 2 handovers from BS2 to BS3

Fig. 1a depicts the routing directions before MS 2 starts to hand over from BS 2 to BS 3. Figs. 1b and 1c
present the propagation of the location update message. It can be found that the location update procedure
ends at the crossover nodes between BS 2 and BS 3, as shown in Fig. 1c. After the HO procedure
finishes, Fig. 1d shows the routing directions of the network. It is also noted that Fig. 1b shows that the
MS can receive packets from both BSs before the address propagation is done. After the old BS receives
the packet propagated over the network in Fig. 1c, it changes its corresponding entry from the wireless
port to the forwarding MAC address in its FT. The old BS then realizes that the MS has handed over to a
new BS successfully. Transmissions between the MS and the old BS thus are terminated.

Characteristics:

a) In the proposed FINCH protocol, there is no need to reroute individual path for MS as all the
nodes in the network have the information of new location. The triangular routing in MIP is
eliminated and therefore there is no need for route optimization. In addition, the new forwarding
address is updated by the first arrived frame, which implies that the new path may be the one with
least congestion or shortest path, that increases network speed
b) The proposed protocol can be used for location update at both link layer and IP layer when MS
moves. HOs at both layers can be done by a single protocol there it helps to reduce handoff delay.
c) Unlike other protocols, there is no centralized gateway. The proposed protocol is a distributed
protocol and can be used in any network topology. It can also be used in other IP and 802-series
networks.

Paging Extension

Fig. 2 Example of FINCH paging extension

In this section, the author has introduced an optional paging extension, P-FINCH, for the proposed
FINCH to enhance the energy efficiency and minimize the signaling overhead for location update. To
support paging in mobile, each BS is assigned to a Paging Group (PG), Each PG has a unique PG
Identifier (PGI) and in each PG, there is a Paging Controller (PC). An MS will enter in to idle mode when
there is no traffic to transmit or received the data. Alternately, MS will update its location only when it
moves to another PC.
Consider the figure 2 to illustrate the paging support in FINCH. Assuming that MS 2 is located in
PG 1initially and the original forwarding directions are shown in Fig. 2a. When MS 2 intends to enter Idle
Mode, it first sends a specific Deregistration message to the BS to initiate the Idle Mode. The BS then
sends an IMEntry_MS_State_Change to PC 1. PC 1 then registers MS 2 to a paging list and sends out the
location update message on behalf of MS 2. After that, all of the packets destined to MS 2 will be
forwarded to PC 1 as depicted in Fig. 2b. Once PC 1 receives packets destined to MS 2, PC 1 should
buffer the packets. When PC 1 wants to awake MS 2 and deliver the buffered packets to MS 2, it will
send it will send paging request to all of the BSs within PG 1 and that paging request is further broadcast
by the BSs. After receiving the paging request, MS2 will wake up and forward its location update
message and when PC1 receives update message from MS2, PC1 will remove the previous entry and
update the new one and start to forward the buffered packets to MS 2. If MS2 moves into PG2, MS2 must
be send the location update message to PC2 to update the current location.PC2 then PC2 will send out
location update message on the behalf of MS 2 and finally message destined to MS2 will be forwarded t o
PC2.
The proposed P-FINCH is also compatible with the mobile WiMAX standards. Because signaling
messages are localized within the coverage of the PC if an MS does not move out of the range of the same
PG, P-FINCH can significantly reduce signaling overhead and efficiently conserve the energy of MS’s.
Also, except PCs and BSs, other network nodes operate similarly as the original FINCH nodes without
any change. Therefore, the paging extension is easy to implement.

Conclusion: MIPv6 and its variations have formed the base standards for mobility in WiMAX networks
as per IETF. But the changing scenarios and increasing complexities of networks with need for more
capacity compel us to look at other possibilities which might tweak the existing standards or provide a
whole new dimension of thought towards mobility. In this review we have considered 3 papers which
amongst themselves cover the interoperability issues between existing 3G networks and WiMAX
networks, solutions to intra-domain handoff latency and packet loss reduction in WiMAX for real time
applications.