Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration and Capacity-Aware Preference on Multi-Rate Wireless Links

Pan, Jen-Yi; Lin, Jing-Luen; Pan, Kai-Fung

doi:10.1109/waina.2008.154

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An extension of MIPv6, called Multiple Care of Address registration (mon-ami6) [62,63,69,70,71] has been proposed for supporting host mobility and Cross-Layer ABPS [11], CLW2A [26] Session IHMAS [43], TMSP [59], [46], [44], MMUSE [16] Transport DCCP [12], m-SCTP [19], TCP-migrate [21], MPTCP [17,18], MSOCKS [20], I-TCP [15], ECCP [60] Between Network and Transport HIP [2,3], Hi3 [4], LIN6 [61], MILSA [7], NIIA [8,9], RANGI [10], Shim6 [36] Network monami6 [62,63], FlowMob [64], GSE [65], ILNP [5], GLI-Split [1], hidden proxy [66], UPMT [67], FRHP [68] multihoming. If a MN configures several IPv6 global addresses on one or more of its NICs, it can register these addresses with its HA as CoAs.…”

Section: Solutions At the Network Layer 411 Monami6mentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey on handover management in mobility architectures

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work presents a comprehensive and structured taxonomy of available techniques for managing the handover process in mobility architectures. Representative works from the existing literature have been divided into appropriate categories, based on their ability to support horizontal handovers, vertical handovers and multihoming. We describe approaches designed to work on the current Internet (i.e. IPv4-based networks), as well as those that have been devised for the "future" Internet (e.g. IPv6-based networks and extensions). Quantitative measures and qualitative indicators are also presented and used to evaluate and compare the examined approaches. This critical review provides some valuable guidelines and suggestions for designing and developing mobility architectures, including some practical expedients (e.g. those required in the current Internet environment), aimed to cope with the presence of NAT/firewalls and to provide support to legacy systems and several communication protocols working at the application layer. application level. While throughput remains a major goal of system design, the main concern of mobility architectures is how to best manage situations where a MN changes network. This event is currently referred to as handover (or handoff ).By default, current operating systems installed on smartphones adopt the following strategy for data transmission: one Network Interface Card (NIC) at a time is configured and employed to send data. If a WiFi network is available, the terminal switches to WiFi; otherwise a cellular network is utilized, if the latter is available too. During the handover, communications are interrupted. While the widespread use of current smartphones confirms that in general such a simple approach may be a viable solution, in some cases this strategy has some severe limitations. Just as an example (which is actually a true story), let us consider the case of an employee working in an institution/company composed of several buildings, all covered by a WiFi network (e.g. a researcher in a university campus). Suppose that the researcher is a commuter and, just before leaving for going home, he/she receives an important Voice over IP (VoIP) phone call. Since he needs to leave to take the last train home, he decides to answer the call using his/her mobile phone; today, there are plenty of smartphone apps that offer very efficient VoIP services. At that moment, the device is connected through WiFi, but when he gets out of the building, the WiFi signal is lost and the smartphone automatically switches to 4G without any handover management at the application level, thus experiencing a first communication interruption. While moving, he passes through other buildings (hence, within their WiFi coverage); as a consequence, the smartphone switches back to WiFi (i.e. a second communication interruption occurs), and then back to 4G (i.e. yet another communication interruption) and so on. One might suggest that the employee should turn off the WiFi NIC before leaving, thus using the cellular...

show abstract

Section: Solutions At the Network Layer 411 Monami6mentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey on handover management in mobility architectures

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Care of Address (MCoA) [Pan et al, 2008a] extends MIPv6 to allow the registration of multiple addresses. The mobile node is always reachable at a unique permanent IPv6 address (employed as an identifier) while several temporary addresses (Care of Addresses) are used as locators to reveal the current network location of the node.…”

Section: Motivation and Problem Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multiple Care of Address (MCoA) [Pan et al, 2008a] The specification of flow bindings [Tsirtsis et al, 2011a;Toseef et al, 2008] extends MCoA specification defining how multiple flows can be exchanged between two nodes, in a multihoming context. This enables to bind a particular flow to a Care…”

Section: Multiple Care Of Addresses and Flow Bindingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multihoming aware optimization mechanism

Sousa

Pentikousis

Curado

2015

2015 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Multiple Care of Address (MCoA) proposal [86] extends MIPv6 to allow the registration of multiple Care of Addresses. With several Care of Addresses the mobile node can maintain concurrent paths with its correspondent nodes [87].The mobile node is always reachable at a unique permanent IPv6 address (employed as an identifier) while several temporary addresses (Care of Addresses) are used as locators to reveal the current network location of the node.…”

Section: Multiple Care Of Addresses and Flow Bindingsmentioning

confidence: 99%