Leveraging proxy mobile IPv6 with SDN

Raza, Syed M.; Kim, Dongsoo S.; Shin, Dong-Ryeol; Choo, Hyunseung

doi:10.1109/jcn.2016.000061

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PMIPv6 is a network-based mobility management protocol where a core entity called the local mobility anchor (LMA) plays the role of the physical mobility anchor point to establish the appropriate tunnel with mobility access gateways (MAGs) after handover based on the binding updates of the user information. Compared to the legacy PMIPv6-based architecture, where LMA and MAG nodes are physically deployed in the forwarding plane, the SDN-based PMIPv6 separates the mobility functions of LMA and MAG from the forwarding plane nodes, which can provide efficient route management in the forwarding plane [17,18].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section, we analyze the performance of the proposed scheme in terms of the handover signaling cost, UL/DL handover delay, and packet loss compared to the SDN-based PMIPv6 [16,17] and SDN-based EPC [23,24,49]. Among the conventional schemes, the basic handover procedure for SDN-based PMIPv6 is same as that of Class 1 in Figure 2a, such as the SDN mobility signaling flow [17] and reactive OpenFlow-PMIPv6 handover signaling flow [18]. In the case of the SDN-based EPC, we assume that the architecture is the full-SDN EPC architecture [24], where all of the control plane entities such as MME and HSS are implemented in the SDN controller for a fair comparison with the SDN-based PMIPv6.…”

Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

QoS-Aware Flexible Handover Management in Software-Defined Mobile Networks

Kyung

Kim

2020

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handover support is one of the important issues in mobile networks to guarantee the quality of service (QoS) requirements for mobile users. Alongside the development of network technologies, handover management to provide service continuity has been researched and applied for the Internet or cellular networks such as 3G/4G/5G. However, each network paradigm provides its own individual handover management system, even though there are different kinds of QoS requirements for various mobile services. This causes inefficient network resource utilization from the network operators’ perspectives. Therefore, this paper proposes a QoS-aware flexible mobility management scheme for software-defined networking (SDN)-based mobile networks. The proposed scheme classifies flows into four classes based on the QoS requirements of services in terms of delay and loss tolerance. According to the classified service characteristics, it provides a differential handover method for each flow class to support efficient network operation without any service degradation by interacting between the forwarding plane nodes and SDN controller. The performance analysis shows that the proposed scheme enables flexible network resource utilization, satisfying the QoS requirements for each class well compared to the conventional schemes that only consider their own individual handover procedure.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

QoS-Aware Flexible Handover Management in Software-Defined Mobile Networks

Kyung

Kim

2020

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the proposed SDN architectures in wireless networks cannot be directly applied to large-scale networks due to this reason [35]. OpenFlowenabled proxy mobile IPv6 (OF-PMIPv6) is proposed in [36] where the control path is separated from the data path by performing the mobility control at the controller, whereas the data path remains direct between the MAG and the LMA in an IP tunnel form. This method achieves improved handover latency over conventional Proxy MIPv6, while the data plane anchor problem is persistent.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anchor Free IP Mobility

Al-Khalidi

Thomos

Reed

et al. 2019

IEEE Trans. on Mobile Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficient mobility management techniques are critical in providing seamless connectivity and session continuity between a mobile node and the network during its movement. Current mobility management solutions generally require a central entity in the network core, tracking IP address movement and anchoring traffic from source to destination through point-to-point tunnels. Intuitively, this approach suffers from scalability limitations as it creates bottlenecks in the network, due to sub-optimal routing via the anchor point. Meanwhile, alternative anchorless, solutions are not feasible due to the current limitations of the IP semantics, which strongly ties addressing information to location. In contrast, novel path-based forwarding solutions may be exploited for feasible anchorless solutions. In this paper, we propose a novel network-based mobility management solution that facilitates IP mobility over such a path-based forwarding substrate. Our solution exploits the advantages of such substrates in decoupling path calculation from data transfer to eliminate the need for anchoring traffic through the network core; thereby, allowing flexible path calculation and service provisioning. Furthermore, by eliminating the limitation of routing via the anchor point, our approach reduces the network cost compared to anchored solution through bandwidth saving while maintaining comparable handover delay. We evaluate our solution through analytical and simulation models and compare it with the IETF standardized solution, Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6). Evaluation results illustrate a significant saving in the total network cost when using our proposed solution, compared to its counterpart.Index Terms-IP-over-ICN, Mobile IP, Proxy MIPv6, LTE, GPRS, Handover.

show abstract

“…In the proactive OF-PMIP Open Flow based Proxy Mobile IP the IP tunnel status of MN is maintained by the Open Flow Mobile Access Gateway (OMAG) as temporary or conclusive. In[9] it is further established that proactive OF-PMIP indicates lower latency as compared to the PMIP or reactive OF-PMIP and supports seamless mobility and no disruption on real time services giving QoS experience to the mobile users.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…it was observed that Mobile IP suffers from long handover latencies causing packet loss as mobile moves from one domain to the other, there are tunneling overheads, signaling overhead due to multiple registrations, consumes large amount of network performance and the extra binding update creates and overhead. To enable no changes in MN during handover in[9] explores the Proxy Mobile IP (PMIP) ISSN: 2414-4592 DOI: 10.20474/jater-5.2.3…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deploying hand offmechanism with the software defined network vs mobile IP for 5G network: A feasibility study

2019

J. adv. tec. eng. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent times the Software De ined Network (SDN), Network Functions Virtualization (NFV), Mobile Edge Computing (MEC), and Cloud Radio Access Network (C-RAN) have evolved as emerging technologies with high performance computing capabilities for the deployment of network functions such as mobile Evolved Packet Core (EPC), irewalls, local cache, virtual base station, etc. Also the of the abstractions provided by Software Networks technologies (essentially SDN and NFV) to support an abstracted model for any 5G network function, independent of its nature (network, computational, storage) and the implied resources (optical, wireless, satellite, cloud, etc). The growth in telecommunications has also led to increased deployment of Mobile Internet Protocol (IP) technology besides General Packet Radio Services (GPRS), 3G and 4G Cellular networks for high-end data or packet switched calls. Mobile IP is an outcome of convergence of cellular communication with the IP networks as a Next Generation Network application on traditional networks to support real-time multimedia services, network mobility and 2-way access. However, there are limitations with the Mobile IP which has its own challenges for implementing in the network which includes Security issues like Denial-of-Service attack, Theft of information Passive Eaves Dropping, insider attack, etc. Further, in Mobile IP there exist triangulation problems between the sending and receiving nodes along with latency issues during handoff for the mobile nodes causing huge burden in the network. This paper will try to compare some of the existing deployments of Mobile IP and make comparative analysis with the SDN implementation models for the Cellular Network for the Handoff mechanism.

show abstract

Leveraging proxy mobile IPv6 with SDN

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

QoS-Aware Flexible Handover Management in Software-Defined Mobile Networks

QoS-Aware Flexible Handover Management in Software-Defined Mobile Networks

Anchor Free IP Mobility

Deploying hand offmechanism with the software defined network vs mobile IP for 5G network: A feasibility study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About