Protocol design and analysis of a HIP-based per-application mobility management platform

Bokor, László; Zeke, László Tamás; Nováczki, Szabolcs; Jeney, Gábor

doi:10.1145/1641776.1641779

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 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%

“…ensuring that if a MN changes its point of attachment to the Internet, while in movement, no communication interruptions are perceived at the application level, and if such interruptions occur, they do not significantly degrade the Quality of Service (QoS) delivered at the proaches described in these proposals suggest a decoupling of the node identifier from its address (locator), e.g. GLI-Split [1], HIP [2,3], Hi3 [4], ILNP [5], LISP [6], MILSA [7], NIIA [8,9], RANGI [10]. These approaches usually comply with future Internet visions, requiring some radical changes in the network architecture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some ap-proaches described in these proposals suggest a decoupling of the node identifier from its address (locator), e.g. GLI-Split [1], HIP [2,3], Hi3 [4], ILNP [5], LISP [6], MILSA [7], NIIA [8,9], RANGI [10]. These approaches usually comply with future Internet visions, requiring some radical changes in the network architecture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A survey on handover management in mobility architectures

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…HIP works with NAT and with all existing network infrastructure. Even though HIP specifications do not support a per-application mobility management, quite recently a per-application mobility management solution based on HIP has been proposed in [5]. This solution has only been simulated using a network simulator, and no real implementation has been developed.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, the need to transport different applications on different access technologies at the same time, and take separate handover decisions for each application has been identified and addressed [3][4] [5]. The motivation is that different applications have different requirements that can be mapped into the different characteristic of the access technologies (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Per-application Mobility management: Performance evaluation of the UPMT solution

Bonola

2011

2011 7th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-In this paper, we provide the performance evaluation of the UPMT (Universal Per-application Mobility management using Tunnels) solution. UPMT offers per-application mobility management, i.e. the capability of separately taking handover decisions for each application. UPMT supports legacy applications, private IP addressing/NATs and it is an overlay solution that does not require the access network to offer any specific support. We have implemented UPMT under Linux OS and made it available under the GPL Open Source license.

show abstract

Host Identity Protocol

Bokor

Nováczki

Imre

Advanced Communication Protocol Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter is committed to give a comprehensive overview of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP), to introduce the basic ideas and the main paradigms behind it, and to show how HIP emerges from the list of potential alternatives with its wild range of possible usability in next generation mobile architectures. The broad scale of feasible advanced mobility management proposals and scenarios, together with the promising mobility management capabilities of HIP and its cryptographic identifier/locator separation technique, will be introduced based on an exhaustive survey of existing mobility solutions designed for the Host Identity Protocol. This broad and up-to-date outline of advanced HIP-based mobility supporting schemes will guide the readers from the basics of HIP through the protocol’s main functions to its complex feature set and power to create a novel Internet architecture for future mobility-centric communications.

show abstract

Protocol design and analysis of a HIP-based per-application mobility management platform

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

A survey on handover management in mobility architectures

A survey on handover management in mobility architectures

Per-application Mobility management: Performance evaluation of the UPMT solution

Host Identity Protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About