A Robust Seamless Handover Scheme for the Support of Multimedia Services in Heterogeneous Emerging Wireless Networks

Abstract

With the rapid development of wireless technologies and numerous types of mobile devices, the need to support seamless multimedia services in Mobile and Ubiquitous Computing (MUC) is growing. To support the seamless handover, several mobility protocols such as Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) (Johnson et al., Mobility Support in IPv6, IETF, RFC 3775, 2004) and fast handover for the MIPv6 (FMIPv6) (Koodli et al. Past handovers for mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6), IETF, RFC 4068, 2005) were developed. However, MIPv6 depreciates the Quality-of-Service (QoS) especially in multimedia service applications because of the long handover latency and packet loss problem. To solve these problems in the MIPv6, FMIPv6 is proposed in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). However, FMIPv6 is not robust for the multimedia services in heterogeneous emerging wireless networks when the MN may move to another visited network in contrast with its anticipation. In MUC, the possibility of service failure is more increased because mobile users can frequently change the access networks according to their mobility in heterogeneous wireless access networks such as 3Generation (3G), Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi), Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMax) and Bluetooth co-existed. In this paper, we propose a robust seamless handover scheme for the multimedia services in heterogeneous emerging wireless networks. The proposed scheme reduces the handover latency and handover initiation time when handover may fail through the management of tentative Care-of Addresses (CoAs) that does not require Duplicate Address Detection (DAD). Through performance evaluation, we show that 123 594 H. Oh et al.our scheme provides more robust handover mechanism than other scheme such as FMIPv6 for the multimedia services in heterogeneous emerging wireless networks.

A Robust Mobile Video Streaming in Heterogeneous Emerging Wireless Systems

“…Video delay shows better performance according to the order of our proposed scheme, PMIPv6, FMIPv6, HMIPv6 and MIPv6. Comparing to PMIPv6, FMIPv6 and other schemes, video streaming delay of the proposed scheme is prominently reduced and that is improved than the previous work [58]. The reason is directly from that the MN can receive the video packets from pAR until the MN sends LP (Last Packet) to pAR and also can receive video packets as soon as moving to new visited networks by using tentative CoAs based on the appropriate selection metric of the wireless technology.…”

Mobility-Aware Video Streaming in MIMO-Capable Heterogeneous Wireless Networks

“…In the case of Wi-Fi, it is only possible for an MN to use mobility within a specific transmission range. For that, we also utilize Figures 4 and 5 of [11][12][13]. However, different from Wi-Fi case similar with the previous works [11][12][13], in this paper we extend LTE case as well as Wi-Fi as shown in Figure 7.…”

“…For that, we also utilize Figures 4 and 5 of [11][12][13]. However, different from Wi-Fi case similar with the previous works [11][12][13], in this paper we extend LTE case as well as Wi-Fi as shown in Figure 7. Figure 4 presents the next four MN states according to the initial MN state (0, 0) and without the MN speed, in a random-walk model.…”

“…Different from the previous works [10][11][12][13], specifically, the main goal of our proposed scheme is a mechanism that selects the "best," according to an appropriate metric, wireless technology for a robust mobile-video-streaming service among all of the wireless technologies, whereby the handover and video latency are reduced on average, and the effects of perfect and imperfect handover predictions are analyzed in terms of MIMO-capable, heterogeneous wireless technologies.…”

A Comprehensive Review of Enhancements and Prospects of Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 Protocol

“…If it is able to verify the MN's previous association with PAR, it buffers the MN's traffic until its attachment. Similar schemes are proposed in [56] and [57] in which the MN uses a temporary CoA (usually the pCoA) during handover, while a proposal in [58] suggests using anycast address during handover. In [59], however, the NAR provides the validated and unique addresses from its pool which are to be used on a permanent basis.…”