1. Design and Evaluation of an Integrated Mobile IP and SIP Framework for Advanced Handoff Management Chao-Hung Hung 2004/08/13

2. Qi Wang；Mosa Ali Abu-Rgheff； Ammad Akram Communications, 2004 IEEE International Conference on, Volume: 7, 20-24 June 2004 Pages:3921 - 3925

3. Outline INTRODUCTION RELATED WORK PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONCLUDING REMARKS

4. INTRODUCTION mobility type： –low-level mode mobility ad hoc mobility terminal mobility –high-level： personal mobility session mobility service mobility

5. INTRODUCTION network-layer：Mobile IP (MIP) –mobility-transparent –TCP-based application-layer：Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) –mobility-aware –UDP-based

6. INTRODUCTION a joint MIP-SIP approach is more powerful, but the inter-operation of MIP and SIP in such a complex context entails a careful design

7. RELATED WORK MIPv4 –triangular routing is used and the MH （Mobility Host） updates its binding –route optimisation (MIPv4-RO) MIPv6 –has integrated the route optimisation concept

8. RELATED WORK SIP –re-INVITE message –SIP registration

9. PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURE MIP-SIP Mobility Servers –Home/Foreign Mobility Server (HMS/FMS) be capable to support both MIP and SIP and manages the various addresses –minimize any functionality redundancies or signaling duplication between MIP and SIP

10. PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURE Handoff Policies –pre-defined handoff policies residing in a mobility policy table installed in the MH –After the handoff detection, the MH decides the respective type of handoff by consulting the policy table and the User Profile –Handoff policiesHandoff policies

11. Handoff Policies

12. PROPOSED HANDOFF MANAGEMENT ARCHITECTURE Handoff Schemes –three major procedures are involved for a macro handoff new FMS discovery and new IP/care-of address acquisitionnew FMS discovery and new IP/care-of address acquisition binding update registration –Handoff signaling flow using MIP+, SIP+ or MIP+SIPHandoff signaling flow using MIP+, SIP+ or MIP+SIP

13. New FMS Discovery and New IP/Care- of Address Acquisition MIPv4：takes only one round trip –Router Solicitation(RS) and Router Advertisement (RA) SIP/MIPv4 or SIP/MIPv6：takes two round trips –Discover, Offer, Request and Ack

14. Binding Update an MH to send both binding updates（BU） to its CH and HMS simultaneously The HMS either interprets the registration message and then sends a BU to the CH （Correspondent Host） or simply forwards the BU or INVITE it receives to the CH

15. Binding Update reduce signalling load –the CH just replies one BA（ Binding Acknowledgement）/OK message instead of two –combining BU and INVITE 【back】back

16. Handoff signalling flow using MIP+, SIP+ or MIP+SIP

17. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Handoff Delay –the time gap between the instance when the MH asks for a new IP address and the instance when a CH’s acknowledgement to the MH’s binding update message arrives at the MH. –macro handoff delay parametersmacro handoff delay parameters t MH HA, t HA CH, t CH MH and t MH CH are the end-to-end delays between MH, HA and CH respectively

18. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION –macro handoff delay calculation of the schemesmacro handoff delay calculation of the schemes –handoff delay vs. delay between MH and CHhandoff delay vs. delay between MH and CH t HA CH ＝25 ms； t MH HA ＝30 ms –handoff delay vs. delay between MH and HA/HS/HMShandoff delay vs. delay between MH and HA/HS/HMS t HA CH ＝25 ms； t MH CH ＝50 ms

19. Macro Handoff Delay Parameters

20. Macro Handoff Delay Calculation of the Schems

21. Handoff Delay vs. Delay Between MH and CH

22. Handoff Delay vs. Delay Between MH and HA/HS/HMS

23. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Handoff Binding Update Reliability –higher signalling reliability would result in fewer retransmission attempts –Let P MIPv4-RO, P MIPv6/SIP denote such a probability for MIPv4-RO and MIPv6/SIP respectively while P MIP+/SIP+/MIP+SIP for our integrated schemes P MIP+/SIP+/MIP+SIP ＝1-（1- P MIPv4-RO ）（1- P MIPv6/SIP ） –comparison of successful binding updates’ probabilitiescomparison of successful binding updates’ probabilities

24. Comparison of Successful Binding Updates’ Probabilities

25. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Handoff Signalling Load –additional messages to the traditional schemes 1 BU from MH to CH for MIPv4-RO+ 1 BU from HMS to CH for MIPv6+ 2 re-INVITE(1 from MH to HMS and 1 from HMS to CH) for SIP+ and MIP+SIP

26. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION –these additional messages are unlikely to impose serious overhead to the involved domains

27. CONCLUDING REMARKS proposed the integration of two major IP-based mobility management architectures, Mobile IP and SIP The basic idea of the framework is to explore and combine the best parts of MIP and SIP

28. CONCLUDING REMARKS The proposed framework would support various mobility scenarios and reduce system redundancies This architecture would effectively reduce handoff delay and improve handoff reliability

29. CONCLUDING REMARKS The architecture achieve these improvements without incurring significant handoff signalling load