Logo TU Ilmenau




"Comparative Analysis of Proxy MIPv6 and Fast MIPv6",

Dr.-Ing. Ali Diab
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Andreas Mitschele-Thiel
Date of publication
Ubiquitous access to information anywhere, anytime and anyhow is a main feature of the upcoming 4G mobile communication networks, which will interconnect existing and future networks via common IP core. 4G networks are termed, therefore, as All-IP and are expected to provide higher bandwidth than currently obtained from 3G networks at lower costs. One of the main challenges arising while deploying these networks is the guarantee of fast and smooth mobility support for customers so that seamless functionality for ongoing applications can be guaranteed. As the mobility in heterogeneous network environments is becoming more complex to be handled by Mobile Nodes (MNs), network-based mobility management solutions are of major interest. Such solutions are currently being developed by the IETF working group “NETLMM”. The basic idea is to develop a new modular mobility management architecture that better accommodates any changes in technologies while reducing the complexity of the MN’s stack software. The well-known proposal of the NETLMM working group is Proxy MIPv6 (PMIPv6), which tries to support mobility without involving MNs. This paper analyzes this proposal and evaluates it compared to the well-known Fast MIPv6 (FMIPv6) protocol in different radio access technologies. The comparison has been achieved with respect to the experienced handoff latency, resulting handoff interruption time and expected number of dropped packets per handoff. This analysis takes the dropping of control messages into account and has been done using mathematical models developed for both protocols. The obtained results show that the best performance can be seen by FMIPv6 in predictive mode. Access technology affects significantly the handoff interruption time. PMIPv6 performs almost comparable to FMIPv6 in reactive mode using a fast radio access technology. However, for slower radio access technologies, PMIPv6 performs better than FMIPv6 in reactive mode. PMIPv6 shows more robustness against control messages dropping than FMIPv6. Similar results are noticed with respect to the expected number of dropped packets per handoff. A main property of PMIPv6 is that there is no remarkable impact of radio access technologies on the number of dropped packets per handoff for downlink traffic.