A survey of integrating ip mobilitly protocols and mobile ad hoc networks

IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials • 1st Quarter 200714
he growth of the Internet and its services and applica-
tions, and the convergence towards All-IP networks in
fourth generation (4G) wireless networks, where all
traffic (data, control, voice and video services, etc.) will be
transported in IP packets, has led to an increasing demand for
mobile wireless access to Internet services and applications.
Wireless networks can be divided into two types: network with
infrastructure (i.e., network with base stations and centralized
administration) and network without infrastructure (i.e., ad
hoc networks).
Mobile IP [1, 2] is the current standard for supporting IP
mobility of mobile nodes in the wireless networks with infra-
structure. Mobile IP enables the mobile node to access Inter-
net and changes its access point without losing the connection.
The mobile node should be in the coverage range of Mobile
IP base station (access point) and has a direct connection to
it. Therefore, Mobile IP can maintain the connection to the
mobile nodes, which are within its base station’s coverage
range. Mobile IP suffers from many drawbacks [3–5], such as
high handoff delay, which results in a high number of packet
loss, especially in the case of frequent handoff (within the
domain), since the foreign agent (FA) must inform the home
agent (HA) about the new IP Care-of-Address (CoA) after
each handoff. Many solutions have been developed to effi-
ciently support local mobility inside IP wireless networks such
as Cellular IP [6–8], Handoff-Aware Wireless Access Internet
Infrastructure (HAWAII) [9, 10], and Hierarchical Mobile IP
(HMIP) [11], which are called IP Micro-mobility protocols.
MANET [12, 13] is a kind of wireless network architecture
that can be flexibly deployed in almost any environment (e.g.,
conference rooms, forests, battlefields, etc.) without the need
of network infrastructure or centralized administration. Each
T
FEKRI M. ABDULJALIL AND SHRIKANT K. BODHE
ABSTRACT
A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is an infrastructureless,
autonomous, and standalone network. A MANET can be flexibly and sim-
ply deployed in almost any environment, but it has limited wireless cover-
age and its connectivity is limited to the MANET boundary. The growth of
the Internet and its services and applications — and the trend in the fourth
generation (4G) wireless networks toward All-IP networks — have led to
an increasing demand for enabling MANET nodes to connect to the Inter-
net and use its services and applications. Mobile IP and IP micromobility
protocols enable a mobile node to access the Internet and change its access
point without losing the connection. The mobile node should be in the cov-
erage range of the access point and should have a direct connection to it.
So, with the cooperation between MANET routing protocols and the IP
mobility protocol, Internet connectivity to MANET nodes can be achieved.
Many solutions have been proposed to enable MANETs to connect to the
Internet using IP mobility protocols. This article presents a survey of solu-
tions for integrating MANETs with the Internet, with the intent of serving
as a quick reference to current research proposals for Internet connectivity
for mobile ad hoc networks based on IP mobility protocols. A qualitative
comparison of the routing solutions for integration is presented. The limita-
tions of these integration solutions are also investigated. A framework for
integrating the Cellular IP access network and MANETs is introduced. This
survey concludes with further points for investigation.
A SURVEY OF INTEGRATING
IP MOBILITY PROTOCOLS AND
MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS
1ST QUARTER 2007, VOLUME 9, NO. 1
www.comsoc.org/pubs/surveys
1553-877X

IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials • 1st Quarter 2007 15
node in a MANET serves as a router and performs mobility
functionalities in an autonomous manner. The drawbacks of
MANETs are limited bandwidth and battery power, limited
wireless coverage, a limited number of services and applica-
tions, and dynamic network topology.
Integration of MANETs to the fixed infrastructure IP
access network has many usage scenarios, and it provides
many advantages for both Infrastructure and MANET net-
works together. MANET users can access the Internet and
access a wide range of Internet services and applications.
Because of the limited coverage of MANETs, integration of
MANETs with the fixed infrastructure IP access network can
increase this coverage. Integration of MANETs with the fixed
infrastructure IP access network based on IP mobility proto-
cols enables MANET nodes movement between different
MANETs without losing the connection. It can provide mobil-
ity support between different nonoverlapping and overlapping
MANETs with multiple gateways. The fixed Infrastructure
network can be extended to include the dead zone and cover
long areas beyond the range of fixed cellular infrastructure.
The number of access points can also be decreased.
This article presents a survey of the integration solutions
for MANETs with regard to the Internet, with the intent of
serving as a quick reference for current research issues in
Internet connectivity to mobile ad hoc networks based on
Mobile IP and IP micro-mobility protocols. A comparison of
the solutions for integrating MANETs with the Internet is
presented.
The rest of the article is divided into seven sections. In the
next section, a detailed description of IP mobility manage-
ment protocols is presented. These protocols are classified
into two categories: IP macro-mobility protocols and IP
micro-mobility protocols. Examples of the first category such
as Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 are described. Examples of
the second category such as Cellular IP, HAWAII, HMIP and
others are also described. Then we present a description of
mobile ad hoc routing protocols. These protocols are classi-
fied into two main categories: table driven routing protocols
and ad hoc on-demand routing protocols. Two examples of
the first category, which are DSDV and OLSR, are described.
One example of the second category, called AODV, is also
described. Next we present an overview of 13 different inte-
grated routing solutions. Most of these integration solutions
are based on Mobile IP and some of these solutions intend to
support micro-mobility. A comparison of these integration
solutions is presented. We describe a framework for integrat-
ing the Cellular IP Access Network and MANETs. Finally, we
conclude our article.
IP MOBILITY MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS
IP mobility management protocols are used to manage node
mobility between different subnets inside the domain or
between different domains. IP mobility management protocols
can be classified into two main groups: IP macro-mobility pro-
tocols and IP micro-mobility protocols. A comprehensive sur-
vey for IP mobility management can be found in [14–18]. In
this section we describe the IP mobility protocols, which can
be used for integrating MANETs with the Internet and pro-
viding IP mobility support to the mobile nodes.
IP MACRO-MOBILITY PROTOCOLS
Macro-mobility is the movement (roaming) of mobile nodes
between two subnets (or cells) in two different domains. IP
macro-mobility protocols are designed to handle the mobile
node movement between two domains without disconnection.
One of the characteristics of IP macro-mobility protocols is
that these protocols cooperate with IP routing mechanisms to
integrate fixed and mobile networks. The most known stan-
dard for IP mobility support is Mobile IP [1], which is the best
and the most frequently adopted solution for supporting IP
macro-mobility. It is proposed by IETF to enable the mobile
node to access Internet and roam freely between different
subnets without losing the connection. Mobile IP has two ver-
sions, Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6. Mobile IPv4 [2] is the
current standard for supporting IPv4 nodes mobility in the
IPv4 networks. The Mobile IPv4 network architecture includes
three new functional entities:
• Mobile node (MN): A host or router, which changes its
access point from one subnet to another without chang-
ing its home IP address.
• Home agent (HA): A router located on a mobile node
home network.
• Foreign agent (FA): A router located in each foreign net-
work, which can enable the mobile node to access Inter-
net.
Figure 1 illustrates the architecture of Mobile IPv4 and
shows mobile node movement from subnet 1 to subnet 2. It
also shows packets routing (triangle routing) in this architec-
ture. The HA and the FA periodically send an agent adver-
tisement message. When the mobile node receives an agent
advertisement message, it can detect whether or not it has
moved to new subnet. The mobile node can also discover new
agent by soliciting an agent advertisement message through
sending an agent solicitation message. Mobile nodes use three
movement detection mechanisms [1, 2] to initiate the handoff
to the new subnet: Eager Cell Switching (ECS), Lazy Cell
Switching (LCS), and Prefix Matching (PM), when a mobile
node detect that it has moved to new mobility Agent, it
acquires a CoA on the new foreign network using either a
CoA of the Foreign Agent (FA CoA) from the agent adver-
tisement messages which are periodically advertised by mobili-
ty agents, or colocated CoA from an external mean like
DHCP(CCoA). Then the mobile node sends a registration
request message to its HA to register its new CoA. The HA
updates mobile node information by associating the CoA of
mobile node with the mobile node’s IP address. Then the HA
sends a registration replay message to the mobile host, either
through the FA or directly, based on the CoA acquisition
mechanism. Packets originated by the mobile node are
received by the mobile node’s HA. The HA locks up the CoA
and tunnels packets to ether the mobile host’s foreign agent
(FA CoA) or to the mobile host (CCoA) based on the binding
information, which is established using registration procedure.
Mobile Ipv4 suffers from some drawbacks like long hand-
off time and signaling overhead and this make it not suitable
to support micro-mobility environment. Several improvements
and enhancements for Mobile Ipv4 have been proposed, for
nFigure 1. Mobile IPv4 architecture.
Corresponding
host
Internet
Roaming
Subnet
Subnet 2
Home agent
Foreign agent
Mobile host
Tunneling

example, MIPv4-RO [19], Mobile IPv6 [20].
Mobile IPv6 [20] is an enhancement for IPv6 [21], which
enables IPv6 node to move from one IPv6 subnet to another
without changing its IPv6 address. It is built based on the
same principles of Mobile IPv4 and using the feature of IPv6.
In Mobile IPv6, MN uses IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [22] to
acquire a new CoA using IPv6 stateless address auto-configu-
ration or state full address auto-configuration (such as
DHCPv6 [23] or PPPv6 [24]). This CoA has the network pre-
fix of the foreign subnet. Therefore, there is no need for a
foreign agent. Mobile IPv6 defines two new IPv6 Destination
Options, which are used for establishing a binding in the
MN‚s HA and corresponding node. These two IPv6 destina-
tion options are called the Binding Update option and Bind-
ing Acknowledgment option, respectively.
IP MICRO-MOBILITY PROTOCOLS
Micro-mobility is the movement (roaming) of mobile nodes
between two subnets (or cells) within the same domain. In
this environment, the mobile node changes its access point in
the access network frequently; therefore, IP micro-mobility
protocols are designed to handle the movement in this envi-
ronment and provide fast and seamless handoff, such as Cel-
lular IP [6–8], HAWAII [9, 10], HMIP [11], EMA [25],
TelMIP [26], and so on. Cellular IP [6–8], from Columbia
University and Ericsson, is proposed for handling mobility
within the domain. It supports passive connectivity, fast hand-
off, and a paging mechanism. It can interwork with Mobile IP
to provide a macro-mobility between domains. Cellular IP
connects to the Internet through a gateway. Figure 2 illus-
trates the Cellular IP access network architecture and its com-
ponents. It shows the mobile node movement in the domain.
Cellular IP replaces IP routing inside the domain, but with-
out any change in IP packet format. Cellular IP maintains two
types of distributed cache for location management and rout-
ing purposes. Packets transmitted by the mobile node create
and update entries in each Cellular IP node’s cache. The
mobile node also maintains its routing cache mappings, even
though it does not regularly trans-
mit data packets, through transmit
route-update packets on the uplink
port at regular intervals called
route-update time. When the
mobile node moves to another
access point, the chain of mapping
entries always points to its current
location because its route-update
and uplink packets create new
mapping and change old mapping.
The mobile node connected to a Cellular IP net-
work is always in either idle state or active state.
The idle mobile node transmits a paging-update
packet when the paging time expires. Paging
update packets are used for location manage-
ment; they are routed from base stations to the
gateway using hop-by-hop shortest path routing.
Handoff in Cellular IP is the movement from
one access point to another access point during
an ongoing data transfer. Cellular IP supports
two types of handoff: hard handoff and semi-soft
handoff. Hard handoff is optimized for wireless
networks where the mobile node is able to lis-
ten/transmit to only one base station as in the
case of a Time Division Multiple Access
(TDMA) [29] network. Cellular IP base stations
periodically emit beacon signals. Mobile nodes
listen to these beacon signals and then initiate handoff based
on signal strength measurements. The mobile node performs
handoff procedure by tuning its radio to a new base station
and then sending a route-update packet. The route-update
packet creates or modifies routing cache entries in Cellular IP
nodes to the gateway. The routing cache entries constitute a
reverse path for the downlink packet to the new base station.
When the crossover node receives the route-update packet, it
diverts the incoming downlink packets towards the new base
station. Data packets received by the old base station after the
handoff will be dropped. Semi-soft handoff is optimized for
networks where the mobile node is able to listen/transmit to
two or more base stations simultaneously for a short duration,
as in a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) [29] network.
When a mobile node receives a beacon signal from a new
base station, it sends a semi-soft packet to the new base sta-
tion and immediately returns to listen to the old base station.
The semi-soft packet creates new routing cache mappings
from the new base station to the crossover node. The mobile
node makes a final handoff decision after some delay called
semi-soft delay. Cellular IP introduces delay at the crossover
node to synchronize the delay difference between the old
route and the new route from the crossover node in case the
new route is shorter than the old route. The crossover node is
notified that a semi-soft handoff is in progress from the semi-
soft packet received from a mobile node that has mapping to
another interface.
HAWAII [9, 10] is a domain-based IP micro-mobility pro-
tocol proposed to support the mobility within the domain.
The domain connects to the Internet via a domain root router
(DRR). Each mobile node has an IP address and a home
domain. When the mobile node moves to a new foreign
domain, it applies a Mobile IP handoff mechanism. Then it
acquires a new collocated CoA. The CoA does not change
during the movement of the mobile node between FAs in the
same domain. Figure 3 illustrates HAWAII access network
architecture and its components. It shows the intradomain
and interdomain movement of the mobile node. The intrado-
main movement is handled within the domain using HAWAII,
nFigure 2. Cellular IP access network.
Cellular IP
node
Cellular IP
base station
Router
Agent
Mobile host
Visited domain
Micro-
mobility
Foreign agent
Home
agent
Internet
R
R
R
nFigure 3. HAWAII access network.
Domain root router
Router
Base station
Mobile node
Regular IP packets
Home domain
Intra-domain
Inter-domain
Foreign domain
Internet
Encapsulated IP packets
Domain

and the interdomain movement between different domains
is handled using Mobile IP.
Hierarchical Foreign Agent (HFA) [11] is an extension
to the basic Mobile IP to address the drawback of mobile
IP through handling the IP micro-mobility of the mobile
node within the domain. The basic network components
are shown in Fig. 4. It consists of two or more hierarchy
(tree like) levels of FAs. At the top of this hierarchy is one
FA (or several) called a Gateway Foreign Agent (GFA).
The GFA connects the domain to Internet by using a pub-
licly routable address. At the bottom of the a hierarchy
level are FAs, which enable the mobile node to access the
domain and connect to internet. For multiple hierarchy
levels, one (or more) FA called a Regional Foreign Agent
(RFA) will be placed between the GFA and FAs, which
are compatible with the GFA. In [25], a description of
architecture for domain-based routing and addressing sup-
port, called EMA, is presented. This architecture does not
specify how IP routing entries are created and modified.
The TORA [30] ad hoc routing protocol can work with
EMA to provide good scalability. In [26], a two-level hier-
archy IP-based mobility architecture, called TeleMIP, is
proposed. TeleMIP is scalable and it achieves small hand-
off latency and signaling overhead in comparison with
Mobile IP. The major advantage of TeleMIP is that the
FAs can be connected to more than one GFA within an
administrative domain or a geographical region. In [31], an
IP-based micro-mobility management protocol, called
IDMP, is proposed. IDMP is an extension to the base
micro-mobility protocol used in TeleMIP. Its major differ-
ence from other IP micro-mobility protocols is that it uses
two dynamically auto-configured CoAs for routing packets
towards the mobile node. Comprehensive surveys and com-
parisons of IP micro-mobility protocols can be found in [3, 14,
27, 28].
MOBILE AD HOC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Routing in ad hoc wireless networks is a hot research topic,
receiving wide interest from researchers [12, 13, 32, 33]. Many
routing protocols have been proposed which tried to solve the
routing problem. As shown in Fig. 5, these routing protocols
have been classified according to their characteristics into two
types: proactive (table-driven) routing protocols and reactive-
source initiated (on-demand) routing protocols [32].
Proactive table-driven routing protocols maintain one or
more routing tables in every node in order to store routing
information about other nodes in the MANET. These routing
protocols attempt to update the routing tables information
either periodically or in response to change in network topol-
ogy in order to maintain consistent and up-to-date routing
information. Every routing protocol uses a different method
for routing update broadcast and updating routing tables, and
they use different number of routing tables. The advantage of
these protocols is that a source node does not need a route-
discovery procedure to find a route to a destination node,
which causes some delay to initiate the connection. The route
to destination is available from the routing table. The draw-
back of these protocols is that maintaining a consistent and
up-to-date routing table requires substantial messaging over-
head, which consumes bandwidth and power usage, and
decreases throughput, especially in the case of a large number
of high-mobility mobile nodes. In the next section we describe
two of these routing protocols, DSDV [34, 35] and OLSR [36,
37], which have been used by some of the integration solu-
tions.
Reactive-source initiated (on-demand) routing protocols
initiate a route discovery mechanism by the source node to
discover the route to the destination node when the source
node has data packets to send to the destination node. After
discovering the route, the route maintenance is initiated to
maintain this route until the route becomes no longer required
or the destination is not reachable. The advantage of these
protocols is that overhead messaging is less. One of the draw-
backs of these protocols is the delay of discovering a new
route. In the next section we describe one of these routing
protocols, AODV [38], which has been used by some of the
integration solutions.
MANET routing protocols are mainly developed to main-
tain route inside MANET, and they do not utilize access
points to make connection with other nodes in the Infra-
structure network and Internet. In this article most of the pro-
posals for integrating the MANET with the Internet are
presented.
PROACTIVE TABLE-DRIVEN ROUTING PROTOCOLS
In this section a description of two proactive table-driven
routing protocols, DSDV and OLSR, is given. It is observed
above that only these two proactive table-driven routing pro-
tocols have been used in the integration solutions for routing.
DSDV [34, 35] is a proactive (table-driven) ad hoc routing
protocol based on the classical distributed Bellman–Ford algo-
rithm to compute the route, but DSDV guarantees loop-free
routing tables. Every mobile node in the network maintains a
routing table that has an entry for every possible destination
within the ad hoc network. Every entry in the routing table
has the following field: destination address (or ID), next hop
address (or ID), hop-count metric, installation time, and
sequence number. The hop-count metric is the minimum
number of hops between the source and the destination. The
nFigure 4. HFA access network.
Internet
Mobile node
Gateway FA
Visited domain
Intermediate
regional FA
Lowest
regional FA
CN
HA
FA
FA FA FA
FA
GFA FA
nFigure 5. Mobile ad hoc routing protocols classification.
DSDV
[34][35]
Table driven On-demand
Mobile ad hoc routing protocols
OLSR
[36][37]
CGSR
[39]
AODV
[38]
DSR
[41]
LMR
[41]
TORA
[30]
ABR
[43]
WRP
[40]

sequence number is assigned by the
destination and used to mark the
entry in order to recognize the stale
route from the new route. Routing
table updates are transmitted to
every node in ad hoc network either
periodically or triggered. Triggered
updates are transmitted in response
to change in network topology.
Route update can be generated
using full dump or incremental
dump. Full dump means that the
full routing table is broadcast
through the ad hoc network. Incre-
mental dump means that only infor-
mation in the routing table entries,
which has changed since last full
dump, is broadcast through the ad
hoc network in one route update
packet. The route update packet includes the accessible desti-
nation nodes, the number of hops to each destination, and the
sequence numbers assigned by source to each route. When a
node receives a route update packet, it replaces the route,
which has the old sequence number, with the new route. In
case both the old and new routes have the same sequence
number, the route with a lower hop-count number will be
chosen in order to be used as a short path to the destination.
The update information will be broadcast to neighbors. When
a link to the next hop is broken, the node assigns an infinite
value along with a new sequence number to every route that
uses this link as next hop, and it will be triggered to broadcast
the route-update packet. DSDV prevents fluctuations in the
route update by delaying advertising any new routing update
information to the network for period of staling time. This
reduces the number of route-update messages. Accordingly,
this will reduce network traffic and optimize routes.
Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) [36, 37] is a proac-
tive, table-driven routing protocol developed as an optimiza-
tion of the basic link-state algorithm for the mobile ad hoc
network. It uses selected nodes called multipoint relays
(MPRs) for the job of forwarding broadcast messages during
the flooding process in order to reduce the control traffic
overhead; this is the key idea behind OLSR. A basic wireless
flooding scenario in the mobile wireless ad hoc network is
depicted in Fig. 6a, where the arrows denote all transmission.
Figure 6b shows flooding of a packet in the OLSR from the
center node using MPRs. In Fig. 6b the black nodes are the
MPRs, which forward packet to all neighbors.
OLSR supports three message types for handling and man-
aging routing information in an ad hoc network:
• HELLO-messages, which are sent periodically to node
neighbors for populating the local link Information base
and the neighborhood information base. OLSR uses the
HELLO-messages exchange mechanism for link sensing,
neighbor and topology detection, and MPR signaling.
• TC-messages: OLSR nodes use these messages to carry
topology information to the other nodes in the network.
Every node in an ad hoc network maintains topology
information for use in routing table calculation.
• MID-messages: each node with multiple interfaces peri-
odically sends MID-messages in order to declare its
interface configuration to the other nodes in the net-
work.
Each node X in the ad hoc network selects a set of nodes
called MPR set for retransmitting broadcast messages. Other
neighboring nodes, which are not in X’s MPR set, receive and
process broadcast messages, but do not retransmit broadcast
messages which are received from node X. A node X selects it
MPR set in a way that they are one-hop symmetric neighbors
of node X and they cover all symmetrically strict two-hop
nodes to X. This means that the broadcast message, which is
sent by a node to its MPR node, will be received by all nodes
two hops away. For neighbor discovery, a node periodically
broadcasts a HELLO messages to its neighbor. When a node
receives a HELLO message, it checks its address. If its
address is found in the HELLO message, it registers the link
to the source of the HELLO message as symmetric. If its
address is not found, it registers the link to the source as
asymmetric. Each node in the ad hoc network sends TC-mes-
sages periodically and when the MPR selector set is changed.
TC-messages are flooded in the ad hoc network according to
MPR flooding mechanisms. TC-messages contain information
about network topology such as the MPR selector set, which
is used to build a topology table and for route calculation.
Each node has a routing table, which is computed from the
link-state information base and the topology set. These infor-
mation sets are updated from the periodic control messages
and the interface configuration of the nodes. OLSR node runs
the shortest-path algorithm to compute the route to every des-
tination in the ad hoc network. The OLSR node runs the
shortest-path algorithm each time a change is noticed in any
of the following: the link set, the neighbor set, the two-hop
neighbor set, the topology set, or the multiple interface associ-
ation information base.
Numerous table-driven routing protocols have been pro-
posed and implemented, and each one tries to solve the rout-
ing problem in particular situation; examples of such protocols
are the Cluster Gateway Switch Routing (CGSR) protocol
[39], the Wireless Routing protocol (WRP) [40], and so forth.
REACTIVE (ON-DEMAND) ROUTING PROTOCOLS
In this section a description of one reactive- source initiated
(on-demand) routing protocol, called Ad hoc On-demand
Distance Vector (AODV), is given. It is observed that only
AODV has been used as a proactive (table-driven) routing
protocol in the integration solutions for routing given in the
next section. AODV [38] is an on-demand reactive mobile ad
hoc routing protocol, which is built based on the basics of
DSDV routing protocols like using hop-by-hop routing,
sequence number, and periodic beacon, but it does not
require that nodes maintain routes to destinations that are not
in active communication. AODV has some similarities with
the DSR [41] routing protocol, such as using the route discov-
ery process and route maintenance. Whenever a source has a
nFigure 6. a) Basic wireless flooding scenario and b) OLSR wireless flooding scenario.
(a) Basic wireless flooding scenario (b) OLSR wireless flooding scenario

packet to transmit, it checks its routing table for a route to
the destination. If it does not have a valid route to the desti-
nation, it invokes a route discovery process to find a route to
destination. The source broadcasts a route request (RREQ)
message to its neighbors. Each node checks the RREQ mes-
sage, if it is the destination or has a fresh enough route to the
destination; it sends an RREP message to the source. If it is
not the destination or does not have a fresh route to the desti-
nation, it rebroadcasts the RREQ message to its neighbors
and so on. Each intermediate node that forwards the RREQ
message creates a reverse route-to-source node, and so the
RREP message uses the reverse route to reach the source
node. AODV uses a destination sequence number for each
routing entry in every node to prevent the loop. A destination
sequence number is generated by the destination for every
route information to be sent to the source node. A destination
sequence number is updated when a node receives new infor-
mation about the sequence number from RREQ, RREP, or
RERR messages. A valid route is the entry for the destination
whose sequence number is greater than sequence number in
the RREQ message. Routes in AODV are maintained by
periodically transmitting a HELLO message (every one sec-
ond) in every node in the ad hoc network. If a node that has
recently forwarded packets does not receive three consecutive
HELLO messages from a neighbor, it concludes that a link to
this neighbor is down. The node propagates a link failure
notification message (an RRER with infinite metric) to its
upstream neighbor towards the source node. Then the source
node initiates the route discovery process to find a new route
to the destination.
Numerous on-demand routing protocols have been pro-
posed and implemented, and each one tries to solve the rout-
ing problem in a particular situation; examples of such
protocols are Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) [41],
Lightweight Mobile Routing (LMR) [42], the Temporally-
Ordered Routing Algorithm (TORA) [30] routing protocol,
and the Associativity-Based Routing (ABR) protocol [43].
INTEGRATE MANETS TO INTERNET
AND IP MOBILITY SUPPORT
INTEGRATED ROUTING PROTOCOL
CLASSIFICATIONS
The characteristics of the ad hoc network and its
routing protocols differ substantially from fixed
Internet and IP mobility protocols. Numerous integration
solutions for integrating MANET with the Internet using IP
Mobility protocols have been developed as the trend of mov-
ing to an all-IP environment. As shown in Fig. 7, these inte-
grated routing protocols may generally be categorized based
on gateway discovery procedure as:
• Proactive solutions
• Reactive solutions
• Hybrid solutions
Integration solutions for routing can also be classified into
two categories, as given in Table 1: tunneling-based-integra-
tion routing solutions and nontunneling-based-integration
routing solutions
• Tunneling-based-integration routing solutions: In this
approach, when the mobile node wants to send packet to
destination, it first looks for the destination (using route
discovery procedure as in AODV or searching in routing
table as in DSDV or based on address network ID). If
the destination address is located inside the MANET, it
simply forwards packets using ad hoc routing protocol. If
the destination address is not found in the MANET, it
encapsulates packets and routes them to the FA (gate-
way). Then the FA decapsulates packets and sends them
to destination using standard IP forwarding.
• Nontunneling-based-integration routing solutions: In this
approach, if the destination address is not located inside
the MANET, the mobile node sends packets to default
route, which is the route to the FA (gateway). Every
node should be able to distinguish external address from
internal address and has a default route to the gateway
node, or every node should establish route to gateway
node during route discovery. Packets are transmitted
inside MANET to destination in the Internet using stan-
dard IP forwarding. The gateway forwards data packets
using standard IP forwarding.
INTEGRATION ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
We now define some important issues for integrating
MANETs with the Internet and supporting mobility between
nFigure 7. Integration Solutions classification based on Gateway discovery.
Proactive solutions
MEWLANA [49]
Reactive solutions
MANET-IP mobility integration solution
Hybrid solutions
MMTHWMN[59]
IntMIPOLSR [54]
DMIPRANET [46]
HAICMANET [45]
GCIPv6MANET [52]
MIPANETIIE [51]
ICAMNET [50]
GCIPv4MANET [48]
MIPMANET [44]
ANETMIP [47]
CGAMANET[56]
ICFIANET [55]
nTable 1. MANET-IP mobility integration solu-
tions.
Category Integration Routing Solutions
Tunneling
based
MIPMANET [44] (2000)
HAICMANET [45] March (2003)
DMIPRANET [46] June (2004)
Non-Tunneling
ANETMIP [47] (1997)
GCIPv4MANET [48] (2001)
MMTHWMN [59] (2001)
MEWLANA [49] Sept (2002)
ICAMNET [50] April (2002)
MIPANETIIE [51] May (2003)
GCIPv6MANET [52] Feb (2003)
IntMIPOLSR [53, 54] July (2004)
ICFIANET [55] Oct (2004)
CGAMANET [56] (2005)

MANETs using IP mobility protocols. These will be the basis
of our comparison.
• Micro-mobility support: Micro-mobility is the handle of
high frequently movement of mobile node inside domain.
Because of the characteristics of ad hoc routing proto-
cols, which provide mechanisms to manage movement of
nodes, micro-mobility support in the integrated routing
protocol is an important metric.
• Gateway discovery: The gateway router is a node located
between a fixed Internet access network and a mobile
wireless ad hoc network, which is used to connect the
MANET nodes to the Internet. It provides Internet con-
nectivity for MANET nodes. The MANET node should
discover the gateway information and its route in order
to access Internet. When the MANET node moves inside
a MANET with multiple gateways, it should be able to
discover and select the gateway with the optimal route.
Therefore, gateway discovery with minimum delay, mini-
mum overhead, and optimal route is an important issue.
• Tunneling: In tunneling, the mobile node encapsulates
packets and sends them to the gateway node. The inter-
mediate nodes look up the destination node route and
they forward packets to the destination. When the gate-
way node receives packets, it decapsulates them and
sends them to the original destination.
• Periodic Agent Advertisement: A gateway node (or FA)
periodically broadcasts agent advertisement messages on
their wireless channel to all mobile nodes in its coverage
area. The agent advertisement message contains informa-
tion such as CoA, which enables mobile nodes to register
with the gateway node and get Internet connectivity. The
agent advertisement message should be flooded to all
MANET nodes, which are out of gateway node coverage
area. Use of the agent advertisement message is an
important metric that can be considered to study the
integration routing protocols performance.
• Movement detection/handoff decision: Handoff in the
integration routing solution is used for route optimiza-
tion. When a mobile node detects a new gateway with a
short path, it initiates the handoff to the new gateway
and this will optimize the route. Most of the integrated
approaches use hop count as a metric for handoff deci-
sion. The handoff decision depends on the movement
detection method. There are two methods for movement
detection: receiving the agent advertisement message and
invalidating the route entry
In the following, we provide an overview of 13 different
integration routing solutions by describing their characteristics
and functionality and categorizing them according to their
characteristics.
Proactive Integration Routing
Solutions — In the proactive solu-
tions, agent advertisement mes-
sages are broadcast by gateway
nodes and forwarded to the whole
ad hoc network. The agent adver-
tisement message is used for gate-
way discovery, creating default
route, mvement detection, and
handoff decision based on number
of hops. The proactive integration
routing solutions details are given
below.
MEWLANA: Mobile IP Enriched
Wireless Local Area Network
Architecture — In “MEWLANA” by Mustafa Ergen [49],
two protocols to extend Mobile IP capabilities to ad hoc net-
works are proposed. They are called MEWLANA-TD and
MEWLANA-RD. Three types of domains are considered,
namely, the Internet domain, the FA domain, and the ad hoc
domain, as shown in Fig. 8.
MEWLANA-TD uses the DSDV routing protocol to route
packets between the FA and mobile ad hoc nodes; Fig. 8a
shows the routing path between mobile nodes to the FA using
DSDV. In MEWLANA-RD, a proposed root-driven ad hoc
protocol called table-based bidirectional Routing (TBBR) is
used to route packets between ad hoc mobile nodes and the
FA. In this protocol, the routing table in every node has two
types of entries. The first type is established when the mobile
node receives a periodic beacon from the FA, which refers to
the default route to the FA (uplink port). The second type is
established when the mobile node receives registration
request message from low-level mobile node. This entry is
used as down link port; Fig. 8b shows the routing path
between mobile nodes to the FA using TBBR.
Integrated Connectivity Framework for Internet and Ad
hoc Networks — In [55], an enhancement for the DSDV
protocol has been proposed to solve the link break problem
due to high mobility, which decreases the performance of the
standard DSDV protocol. It proposes a bidirectional connec-
tivity for ad hoc networks and the Internet based on EDSDV.
Three simple communication scenarios are presented a.
Reactive Integration Routing Solutions — In the reactive
solutions, mobile nodes initiate route discovery so as to look
for the gateway node. Mobile nodes send a route request mes-
sage, or an agent solicitation message, to find the gateway
node and route to it. This kind of solution cannot detect the
mobile node movement to another gateway or take fast hand-
off decision. It uses invalidate route entry for movement
detection and initiates gateway discovery. The reactive inte-
gration routing solutions details are given below.
Micro-mobility within Wireless Ad hoc Networks:
Towards Hybrid Wireless Multihop Networks — In [59],
the author proposes integration between Cellular IPv6 and
AODVv6, which enables the mobile node to access the Cellu-
lar IPv6 network even if it is farther than one hop distance
from base station. This integration approach has two different
operation modes: proxy-enabled and proxy-disabled. The base
station runs AODV and works as an access point for the
mobile nodes. A mobile node initiates a route acquisition pro-
cedure for route discovery and Cellular IP registration. The
mobile nodes sends a route request with an IPv6 multicast
nFigure 8. a) MEWLANA-TD and b) MEWLANA-RD.
Internet
CN
HA
FA
FA domain
Ad hoc domain
Internet
CN
HA
FA
FA domain
Ad hoc domain

address ALL-BS for base station discovery. The base stations
send route replay with Cellular IPv6 beacon as the IPv6 desti-
nation options header. In proxy-enabled mode, the base sta-
tion responds to the route request on behalf of the Cellular
IPv6 gateway, and it also sends packets addressed to the Cel-
lular IPv6 gateway. In this mode, an ad hoc route is estab-
lished for the Cellular IPv6 gateway. The route-update packet
and data packet are sent to the Cellular IPv6 gateway using
IPv6 routing header. In proxy-disabled mode, the base station
sends only one route request on behalf of itself. In this mode,
the ad hoc route is only established to the base station and no
ad hoc route is established for the Cellular IPv6 gateway. The
route update packets and data packets are sent to the base
station using IPv6 routing header. In proxy-enabled mode, the
mobile node that is in the Cellular IPv6 base station coverage
controls the handoff procedure. This mobile node sends route
update and proxy-RU to the Cellular IPv6 gateway on behalf
of each node having an active connection through it. In proxy-
disabled mode, the handoff procedure depends on the mobile
node that is in the Cellular IPv6 base station coverage. This
mobile node sends a gratuitous RREP packet with a Cellular
IPv6 beacon to every mobile node having an active connection
through it on behalf of base station. Then the mobile node
controls the handoff procedure by sending a route update
packet to the Cellular IPv6 gateway via the new base station.
Common Gateway Architecture for Mobile Ad hoc Net-
works — In [56], an architecture for supporting multiple
gateways for Internet access in the mobile ad hoc network is
proposed. This architecture includes several access points,
which are connected to one common Internet gateway, and
represents part of the ad hoc network. The common gateway
is not part of the ad hoc network. In this architecture, the
AODV is selected as a MANET routing protocol. Three types
of nodes are presented in the architecture as follows:
• Mobile nodes: ad hoc nodes running AODV routing pro-
tocol with some extension to enable it to discover the
internet gateway
• Access points: routers running the AODV routing proto-
col which have two interface; one wireless which is con-
nected to the ad hoc network and one wire which is
connected to the gateway
• Gateway: a router that has a connection to all access
points and another connection to Internet
This architecture manages the IP address space and run
AODV with some extension required to connect to the Inter-
net. When the gateway wants to find the route to any node in
the ad hoc network, it sends an RREQ message to every
access point. These access points send the RREQ message to
its neighbors, and so on, to the destination. Then
the destination sends an RREP message to the
gateway, so that the route will be established
from the gateway to the destination. The gate-
way selects the route with minimum hop count.
If the gateway receives an RREQ message, it
will send an RREP message through the access
point, which sends the RREQ message to the
gateway. If the route is lost, a new optimal route
is established using the routing protocol
(AODV).
Hybrid Integration Routing Solutions — In
the hybrid solutions, both the proactive and
reactive gateway discovery approaches, or a
combination of the proactive and reactive
approaches, are used. This kind of integration
uses flood-periodic agent advertisement mes-
sages to announce the presence of the gateway nodes, and
uses agent solicitation messages or the agent discovery proce-
dure by mobile nodes to discover the gateway nodes. The
hybrid integration routing solutions details are given below.
Ad Hoc Networking with Mobile IP — In this proposal
[47], an ad hoc networking mechanism is designed and imple-
mented, which enables mobile computers to communicate
with each other and access the Internet. An adaptation for
Mobile IP protocol is proposed. The proposed adaptation
makes the FA to serve a mobile node, which is out of commu-
nication range. A modified Routing Information Protocol
(RIP) [57, 58] is used to handle the routing inside the ad hoc
network.
MIPMANET: Mobile IP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks — In
“MIPMANET — Mobile IP for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”
[44], a solution for integrating ad hoc networks to the Internet
based on Mobile IP is proposed. This solution is proposed to
provide mobile nodes in ad hoc networks with access to the
Internet and the mobility service of Mobile IP. The FA is
used as an access point to the Internet. The AODV routing
protocol is used to route packets between the FA and the ad
hoc nodes. When a new node wants to access the Internet, it
registers with the FA using its home address. The mobile
nodes in the ad hoc network tunnel the packets to the FA in
order to send them to the Internet. The FA simply sends any
packet coming from the Internet to the mobile node in the ad
hoc network. Routing the packet inside the ad hoc network is
based on the ad hoc routing protocol used, which in this case
is AODV. MIPMANET uses the route discovery mechanism
of the AODV routing protocol to search for the destination.
If the route to destination is not found within the ad hoc net-
work, the mobile node establishes a tunnel to the FA accord-
ing to the FA default route the mobile node registers with.
Global Connectivity for IPv4 Mobile Ad hoc Networks —
In this Internet draft [48], the authors proposed a method to
enable MANET to obtain Internet connectivity. The method
proposed in this Draft is integration between Mobile IPv4 and
AODV, such that a mobile node outside the FA transmission
range can get a CoA and connect withthe Internet through
other hops in the MANET. It can roam to another MANET
subnet without disconnection using Mobile IP.
Internet Connectivity for Ad hoc Mobile Networks —
This research work [50] is similar tothe Internet Draft
described in [48]. It presents integration between Mobile IP
and AODV. The authors combine the mobile IP and AODV
nFigure 9. Integrated network architecture.
Mobile node
Gateway node (HA,
Wireless link
MANET boundary
Gateway
GatewayGateway
Gateway
Internet

such that the mobile node in the ad
hoc network can obtain Internet
connectivity and roam to another
subnet.
Mobile IP and Ad Hoc Networks:
An Integration and Implementa-
tion Experience — In [51], inte-
gration of a MANET with the
Internet is proposed. In this inte-
gration, one-hop wireless networks
are extended to multiple MANETs.
Every MANET is served by an FA
(access point), and it represents a
subnet of the Internet. The pro-
posed architecture consists of mul-
tiple MANETs connected to the
Internet using different access
points called gateways. Figure 9
shows this architecture.
Global Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc Networks —
This Internet Draft [53] describes a method to enable
MANET nodes to communicate with the fixed Internet. The
connection between the MANET nodes and the Internet is
through nodes called Internet-gateways, which are connected
to the Internet using a wired interface and connected to
MANET using a wireless interface. The author has proposed
two methods to enable MANET nodes to find the Internet-
gateway and obtain the global prefix information, so that the
MANET node can generate a global IPv6 address, which is
used for sending/receiving packets from/to the Internet.
A Hybrid Approach to Internet Connectivity for Mobile
Ad Hoc Networks — In [45], the authors proposed a hybrid
scheme to enable the MANET nodes to obtain Internet con-
nectivity using Mobile IP. The FA periodically broadcasts
agent advertisement messages. The agent advertisement mes-
sages are flooded in the MANET in an n-hop neighbor. Any
node, n hops far from the FA, can receive up-to-date informa-
tion about the FA. Mobile nodes more than n hops away from
the FA and wanting Internet connectivity broadcast a solicita-
tion message to discover the FA. The intermediate node,
which receives a fresh agent advertisement message and has a
correct route to the FA, can reply to the mobile node with a
unicast advertisement.
Dynamic Mobile IP Routers in Ad Hoc Networks — In
[46], integration between cellular system (GPRS) and ad hoc
networks is presented using Mobile IP. The basic idea in the
integration is using mobile routers as a gateway between the
HA and ad hoc mobile nodes. It is assumed that gateways
(mobile routers) in the ad hoc network are multi-interfaced.
One interface is connected to the cellular system and the
other connected to the ad hoc network using the ad hoc rout-
ing protocol. The mobile router sets up tunnels to every
mobile node for which it is serving as gateway, and another
tunnel to the HA using second interface.
Integration of Mobile-IP and OLSR for Universal Mobili-
ty — In [54], by Moner Binzaid et al., a hierarchical mobility
management architecture is proposed and used to intercon-
nect MANET nodes to the Internet. The access network of
the proposed integrated network architecture is called OLSR-
IP access network. It includes several functional entities, as
shown in Fig. 10.
COMPARISON AND SUMMARY
In this section a comparison summary of the integration rout-
ing solutions, based on the abovementioned integration issues,
is presented. A summary of the Proactive Integration Routing
Solutions characteristics and design issues is given in Table 2.
A summary of the Reactive Integration Routing Solutions
characteristics and design issues is given in Table 3. A summa-
ry of the Reactive Integration Routing Solutions characteris-
tics and design issues is given in Tables 4 and 5. Table 6 gives
a general comparison between the groups of integration solu-
tions. In the following, we present issue-by-issue comparison
of the integration routing solutions.
MICRO-MOBILITY SUPPORT
From Tables 2–5, it can be concluded that most of the inte-
gration solutions are used to connect MANET to the Internet
and support mobility using Mobile IP, but a few of these inte-
gration solutions try to integrate MANET to the Internet and
support micro-mobility between multiple access points (gate-
way nodes, as in [51, 54, 56, 59]), and only the integration
solution presented in [59] tries to utilize IP micro-mobility
protocols for supporting MANET mobile-node Internet con-
nectivity and mobility between different base stations. None of
these integration protocols employ IP micro-mobility proto-
cols [3, 14] for supporting mobility between different overlap
and none overlap MANETs with multiple access points within
domain, whereas such a proposal is recommended for inte-
grating MANET to infrastructure networks and support
mobility between multiple nonoverlap and overlap MANETs
with multiple access points.
GATEWAY DISCOVERY
The proposals that use reactive gateway discovery required a
long time to access and send packets to the Internet. If the
node wants to access and send packet to the Internet, it needs
first to send route discovery. If the destination is not in the
MANET, it sends a route discovery for the gateway. So it takes
a long time for the discovery process. Some proposals need
only one route discovery process. In the integrated solutions,
which uses proactive gateway discovery, a route to the gateway
node is available when it is needed; such proposals are present-
ed in [44, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55]. If the destination address is not in
the routing table, the default route to gateway node should be
used. The integration routing solutions have been classified on
the basis of gateway discovery into three categories:
nFigure 10. OLSR-IP network architecture.
OLSR gateway
OLSR wired node
OLSR base station
OLSR mobile node
Regular IP packets
Encapsulated IP packets
Domain
Macro-
mobility
Internet
Foreign domainHome domain
Micro-mobility
Wireless link

nTable 2. A summary of the proactive integration approaches..
Proactive Approaches MEWLANA [49] Sept. (2002) ICFIANET [55] Oct. (2004 )
1. Micro-Mobility support No No
2. Gateway Discovery 1 method 1 method
3. Tunneling No No
4. Periodic Agent Adv Yes No
5. Movement Detection Hop count Infinite hop count metric
6. Handoff decision Hop Count Infinite hop count metric
7. Mobile IP MIPv 4 MIPv 4
8. Ad hoc Routing DSDV&TBBR EDSDV
9. Implementation Approach
Adjusting Mobile IP to work with DSDV
and support TBBR
Adjusting DSDV to support Mobile IP
10. Periodic Unicast Agent Adv. No, it is mentioned as a proposal No
11. Use Agent Solicitation for Gateway discovery No, it is mentioned as a proposal No
12. Incorporate Default Route concept to Ad hoc
routing protocol
Yes No
13. Routing between MANET nodes and Gateway
Using route established by agent adver-
tisement message
According to EDSDV protocol.
nTable 3. A summary of the reactive integration approaches.
Reactive Approaches MMTHWMN [59] (2001) CGAMANET [56] (2005 )
1. Micro-Mobility support Yes Yes
2. Gateway Discovery 1 method 1 method
3. Tunneling No No
4. Periodic Agent Adv. No No
5. Movement Detection Controlled by MN in the base station coverage Invalidated the route entry.
6. Handoff decision Controlled by the MN in the base station coverage Invalidated the route entry
7. Mobile IP Cellular IPv 6 No
8. Ad hoc Routing AODVv 6 AODV
9. Implementation Approach Combining of Cellular IPv 6 and AODVv 6 Adjusting AODV to handle micro-mobility
10. Periodic Unicast Agent Adv. No No
11. Use Agent Solicitation for
Gateway discovery
Use route acquisition No
12. Incorporate Default Route
concept to Ad hoc routing protocol
No Yes
13. Routing between MANET nodes
and Gateway
It utilizes IPv 6 routing header According to AODV protocol

• Proactive: In the proactive solution [49, 55], the agent
advertisement messages are broadcast by gateway nodes
and forwarded to the whole ad hoc network. The agent
advertisement message is used for gateway discovery,
creating a default route, and movement detection and
handoff decision based on number of hops. This kind of
integrated solution provides good Internet connectivity if
most of the mobile nodes need Internet connectivity. But
it generates an overhead in an ad hoc network if most of
the mobile nodes are not interested in Internet connec-
tivity and most of the traffic is inside the ad hoc network.
• Reactive: In the reactive solution [59, 56], mobile nodes
initiate route discovery to look for gateway nodes.
Mobile nodes send a route request message, or an agent
solicitation message, to find the gateway node and the
route to it. This kind of solution cannot detect the
mobile node movement to another gateway or make a
fast handoff decision. It utilizes invalidate route entry for
movement detection and initiates gateway discovery. The
reactive approach requires a long time to access and
send packets to the Internet. If the node wants to access
and send packets to the Internet, first it needs to send a
route discovery. If the destination is not in the MANET,
it sends a route discovery for the gateway. Thus, the dis-
covery process takes a long time. Some proposals use
only one route discovery process. In the integrated solu-
tion, which uses proactive routing protocols, route to
destination is available when it is needed.
• Hybrid: The Hybrid Solution [44–48, 50–52, 54] uses
proactive and reactive gateway discovery approaches, or
a combination of the proactive and reactive approaches.
Using a combination of the proactive and reactive
approaches has some advantages, for example, it decreas-
es the agent advertisement-flooding overhead. It uses a
flood-periodic agent advertisement message, but to a lim-
ited number of nodes, called a MANET diameter. It uses
an agent solicitation message or the agent discovery pro-
cedure for mobile nodes, which are out of the agent
advertisement message’s reach, as in [45].
TUNNELING
In integration routing solutions, which use tunneling, the
mobile node encapsulates packets and sends them to the gate-
way node. Intermediate nodes look up the destination node
route and forward the packets. When the gateway node
receives the packets, it decapsulates packets and sends them to
original destination. The use of tunneling inside the MANET
nTable 4. Summary of the hybrid integration approaches.
Hybrid Approaches
ANETMIP [47]
(1997)
MIPMANET [44]
(2000)
GCIPv4MANET [48]
(2001)
ICAMNET [50]
April (2002)
MIPANETIIE [51]
May (2003)
1. Micro-Mobility Support No No No No Yes
2. Gateway Discovery 2 methods 2 methods 2 methods 2 methods 2 methods
3. Tunneling No Yes No No No
4. Periodic Agent Adv. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
5. Movement Detection
Receiving Agent
advr. from new
FA.
MIPMANET Cell
switching
Algorithm
As in MIPv4
Receive agent
adv. from new
FA
As in MIP
6. Handoff decision Shortest distance
MIPMANET Cell
switching
Algorithm
As in MIPv4
If MN has not
received agent
Adv. From regis-
tered FA.
Shortest distance
7. Mobile IP MIPv4 MIPv4 MIPv4 MIPv4 MIPv4
8. Ad hoc Routing Modified RIP AODV AODV AODV DSDV
9. Implementation
Approach
Adjusting Mobile
IP work with
Modified RIP
Adjusting Mobile
IP to work with
AODV
Adjusting Mobile IP
to work with AODV
Adjusting Mobile
IP to work with
AODV
Adjusting Mobile
IP to work with
DSDV
10. Periodic Unicast
Agent Adv.
No No No No No
11. Use Agent Solicitation
for Gateway discovery
Yes Yes No No Yes
12. Incorporate Default
Route concept to Ad hoc
routing protocol
Yes Yes FA as default route No Yes
13. Routing between
MANET nodes and
Gateway
According to a
modification to a
modified RIP
Using tunneling Normal IP forwarding
Standard IP
forwarding
Based on DSDV
routing

makes forwarding packets transparent to the MANET routing
protocol. But tunneling has some drawbacks such as increased
packet size and increased packet processing time. The use of
tunneling can prevent the loop inside the MANET in the rout-
ing of data packets to a destination in the Internet, and can
make routing packets independent of topology changes within
the ad hoc network. It is the MANET routing protocol’s
responsibility to find a path to the end of tunnel.
In the integration solutions, which use tunneling, each
node in the MANETs should incorporate the default route to
the gateway node in the MANET routing protocol’s routing
table. The integrated routing solutions have been classified
into two categories:
• Tunneling-based integration routing solutions [44–46]
• Nontunneling-based integration routing solutions [47–52,
54–56, 59]
PERIODIC AGENT ADVERTISEMENT
It is observed that using agent advertisement messages in inte-
gration solutions has many advantages:
• They can be used for gateways discovery
• They can be used for acquiring gateways information
such as CoA
• They can be used to create default route in each mobile
node
• They can be used to set up MANET diameter in case of
overplayed MANETs
• They can be used for movement detection and handoff
decision
• They can be used to establish route to gateway node,
such that the mobile node can use this route to transmit
data packets to the Internet
Also, it is observed that periodically broadcast agent adver-
tisement message can increase the traffic and generate an
overhead in ad hoc network. As shown in Tables 2–5, the
roposals in [45–51, 54] use periodic agent advertisement. On
the other hand, the proposals in [52, 55, 56, 59] do not use it;
they are reactive for gateway discovery.
MOVEMENT DETECTION/HANDOFF DECISION
Most of the integrated proposals use hop count as a metric
for handoff decision. The handoff decision depends on the
movement detection approach. There are two methods for
movement detection:
• The method based on agent advertisement message, as in
[44–52]
• The method based on invalidate route entry of the ad hoc
routing protocol routing table, as in [54–56, 59].
Finally, we present a comparison summary for three other
important design issues in the integrated proposals.
nTable 5. A summary of the hybrid integration approaches( cont.)
Hybrid Approaches
GCIPv6MANET [52]
Feb (2003)
HAICMANET [45]
March (2003)
IntMIPOLSR [53, 54]
July(2004)
DMIPRANET [46] June
(2004)
1. Micro-Mobility Support No No Yes No
2. Gateway Discovery 2 methods 2 methods 2 methods 2 methods
3. Tunneling No
To FA=yes, from
FA=no;
No Yes
4. Periodic Agent Adv. No Yes Yes Yes
5. Movement Detection As in MIPv6
Using MMCS Cell
switching Algorithm [44]
OLSR for micromobility,
and MIP for macromobility
Receive Agent Adv.
From different Mobile
Router.
6. Handoff decision As in MIPv6
Using MMCS Cell
switching Algorithm [44]
OLSR for micromobility,
and MIP for macromobility
Based on TTL value
7. Mobile IP MIPv6 MIPv4 MIPv4 MIPv4
8. Ad hoc Routing AODVv6 AODV OLSR AODV
9. Implementation
Approach
Adjusting Mobile IPv6
to work with AODVv6
Adjusting Mobile IP to
work with AODV
Adjusting OLSR to support
micromobility
Adjusting Mobile IP to
work with AODV
10. Periodic Unicast
Agent Adv.
No No No No
11. Use Agent Solicitation
for Gateway discovery
Yes Yes Yes Yes
12. Incorporate Default
Route concept to Ad hoc
routing protocol
Yes No No No
13. Routing packets
between MANET nodes
and Gateway
Using default route
Using Tunneling and
AODV
Based on OLSR routing Using Tunneling

GATEWAY (FA) DISCOVERY PROCEDURE
ANETMIP [47] uses two methods for gateway discovery.
ANETMIP [47] discovers the gateway either by listening for
agent advertisement broadcast by the FA, or by sending an
agent solicitations message. We can observe that the ANET-
MIP [47] gateway discovery methods are a modification to the
mobile IP agent discovery methods, such that the agent adver-
tisement message or the agent solicitation message can travel
more than one hop to reach the mobile node or the FA. In
ICAMNET [50] and GCIPv4MANET [48], two methods are
used for discovering the gateway. In the first, the mobile node
can learn the FA and its IP address from the periodic agent
advertisement messages. In the second, the mobile node
issues a route request of the AODV for the “All Mobility
Agents” multicast group address. We can observe that the
first method is a modification of mobile IP and the second
method is a modification of the AODV routing protocol.
MMTHWMN [59] uses a reactive approach for gateway dis-
covery. The mobile node sends AODV route request with an
IPv6 multicast address ALL-BS and, based on the protocol
operation mode, the base station’s response to the route
request along with beacon packet. MIPANETIIE [51] uses the
same gateway discovery procedures used in ANETMIP [47],
but in MIPANETIIE [51], the mobile node sets the destina-
tion field to the all-routers multicast address 224.0.0.2 in the
multicasts agent solicitation in order to find a nearby mobile
agent. MIPMANET [44] uses the same methods used in
ANETMIP [47] for gateway discovery, which are a modifica-
tion to mobile IP agent discovery methods. In HAICMANET
[45], three methods are used for discovering the gateway,
either by monitoring any agent advertisement message and
recording the address of the FA, or by broadcasting agent
solicitation to discover an FA, or a combination of the first
and second. In IntMIP OLSR [53, 54] two methods are used
for discovering the gateway, either by receiving a periodic
agent advertisement message from OLSR-GW, or by sending
agent solicitation message. The IntMIP OLSR [53, 54] uses
the OLSR routing protocol to handle the broadcasting of
agent advertisement and agent solicitation messages inside the
access networks, so that the gateway discovery broadcast over-
head is less than that of other proposals. DMIPRANET [46]
uses two methods for gateway discovery, either through send-
ing a solicitation message requesting agent (gateway) services,
and then receiving the agent advertisement message, or by
waiting for the periodic agent advertisement message. In
MEWLANA [49], mobile nodes use only agent advertisement
to discover the access point (gateway) to the Internet. In
ICFIANET [55], the gateway discovery is totally based on the
modification to the MANET routing protocol , a host broad-
casts DSDV advertisement to its neighbors, in order to estab-
lish routing table, so that a mobile node and an FA
automatically know each other’s presence via routing update
of EDSDV protocol. In GCIPv6MANET [52], two methods
for gateway discovery are used. The first uses an extended
route discovery messaging of on-demand routing, and the sec-
ond uses an extended router solicitation and advertisement of
the Neighbor Discov-
ery Protocol (NDP).
In CGAMANET [56],
the gateway address is
preconfigured in
mobile nodes. Another
method uses AODV
with any of the gate-
way discovery proce-
dures.
DESTINATION ROUTE DISCOVERY AND
PACKETS TRANSMISSION
In MIPMANET [44], the mobile node lets the route discovery
mechanism of the ad hoc routing protocol search for the des-
tination before it can decide whether or not the destination is
within the ad hoc network. Then it simply tunnels packets to
the FA. In GCIPv4MANET [48], the mobile node discovers
the route to external destination either by using route created
using FA_RREP from the gateway node, or if the route to
destination is not discovered within the MANET, the mobile
node uses path created using agent advertisement message. In
MMTHWMN [59], the mobile node uses AODVv6 route dis-
covery to search for the destination; if it is not found, it initi-
ates route discovery and sends RREQ with an IPv6 multicast
address ALL-BS. When the base station receives the RREQ
packet, it replies with the RREP packet, which establishes the
route from the mobile node to the base station or to the Cel-
lular IPv6 gateway. The mobile node utilizes the IPv6 routing
header for sending data packets. In ICFIANET [55], the
mobile node checks its routing table. If the route entry is
found, packets will be forwarded inside the ad hoc network. If
the route entry is not found, the mobile node checks the route
to the FA. If the route to the FA is found, packets will be for-
warded to the FA gateway towards the Internet; otherwise,
the packets will be discarded. In HAICMANET [45], the
same procedure as in MIPMANET [44] and ICFIANET [55]
is used. If no route reply is received except FA_RREP, the
mobile node discovers that the destination is located outside
the MANET. Then, the packets are encapsulated and routed
to the FA. Also, the agent advertisement message is used to
set up the reverse route to the mobile node. In MIPANETIIE
[51], if the destination address is not listed in the kernel rout-
ing table, the packets will be forwarded to the gateway. In
DMIPRANET [46], if the destination address cannot be
reached using ad hoc routing, the packets will be forwarded
using tunneling to the mobile router. It can be observed that
MIPMANET [44], HAICMANET [45], and DMIPRANET
[46] use the idea of tunneling for data packets transmission
inside MANET toward the external destination. In
MEWLANA [49], the mobile node checks its routing table: if
the route entry is found, the packets will be forwarded inside
the ad hoc network; if the route entry is not found, the mobile
node routes packets to the FA gateway (default route) towards
the Internet. Also, IntMIP OLSR [53, 54] uses the same pro-
cedure used in MEWLANA [49]; routes to each node are
immediately available for all destinations in the access net-
work, and these routes are computed with Dijkstra’s shortest-
path algorithm. In ANETMIP [47], the mobile node searches
its kernel routing table. The kernel IP code looks up the
matching route entry. If the selected route entry carries an
RTF_INDIRECT flag, the IP will have to do another look up
for the indirect gateway returned in first look up. The second
look up returns the link-layer address of next hop, which is
used for packets transmission. In GCIPv6MANET [52], if
mobile node does not have a route to the destination host, it
nTable 6. Comparison of the 3 integration approaches.
Proactive Approach
[49, 55]
Reactive Approach
[56, 59]
Hybrid Approach
[44–48, 50–52, 54]
Periodic Agent Advertisement Yes No Yes
Using Agent Solicitation for
Gateway discovery
No Yes Yes
Gateway Discovery 1 method (Proactive) 1 method (Reactive) 2 methods (Proactive

sends a route request for the destination. If a reply is not
received and a default route exists, the node uses the default
route for packet transmission to the destination. In ICAM-
NET [50], there are two ways for destination route discovery
and packets transmission, either using the route created from
FA_RREP, or if the route to destination is not discovered
within the MANET, the mobile node transmits packets to the
FA using the path created by using the agent advertisement
message. In CGAMANET [56], the mobile node has the abili-
ty to distinguish external address from the internal address.
Then, it broadcasts the route request to establish the route to
gateway using standard AODV operation.
ADDRESSING
In GCIPv4MANET [48], the mobile node uses its home IP
address in its home network as in Mobile IP, and it gets a
globally routable IP address CoA on the visited network. The
CoA in GCIPv4MANET [48] can be obtained in one of the
following three ways:
• From an agent advertisement message
• By issuing an agent solicitation message
• By acquiring a collocated CoA
But in HAICMANET [45], every node has an arbitrary
address, which is used within the MANET, and it uses the
CoA acquired from the FA for external communication. In
MIPMANET [44], the mobile node that wants Internet access
has a home IP address that is valid on the Internet, and this
home address can be used on the ad hoc network as well. In
MMTHWMN [59], a mobile node uses a collocated CoA that
it is formed from network prefix in the Cellular IPv6 beacon.
In MIPANETIIE [51], every node should have two address: a
home IP address and a CoA as in Mobile IP. IntMIP OLSR
[53, 54] uses the same addressing as in MIPANETIIE [51]:
every mobile node has two IP addresses, a home IP address
and a CoA. The CoA is the IP address of OLSR-GW. In
DMIPRANET [46], a mobile router connects to the Internet
using a global IP address, and the mobile node uses a collo-
cated CoA that it acquires for use on their WAN interface
and uses its home address in the ad hoc network. For ICFI-
ANET [55] and MEWLANA [49], every node should have a
routable IP address, a home IP address that is used for rout-
ing inside MANET, and an FA address that is used as a CoA
for every visited mobile node. In ANETMIP [47], every node
has a home IP address, which is used for communication with
a host in the Internet or a host inside MANET, as in Mobile
IP. In GCIPv6MANET [52], the mobile node gets the global
prefix information of the Internet-gateway and uses it for con-
figuring a routable IPv6 address.
A FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATING
CELLULAR IP ACCESS NETWORK AND
MOBILE AD HOC NETWORKS
Based on the above survey and comparison, we observed that
most of the abovementioned solutions aim to support
MANET with Internet connectivity based on Mobile IP and
do not support micro-mobility; a few of these integration solu-
tions try to integrate MANETs to the Internet and support
micro-mobility between multiple access points (gateway
nodes) as in [51, 54, 56, 59]). Only the integration solution
presented in MMTHWMN [59] tries to utilize IP micro-
mobility protocols for supporting MANET mobile node Inter-
net connectivity and mobility between different base stations,
but it has many drawbacks and limitations. MMTHWMN [59]
is proposed for the Cellular IPv6 network and AODVv6 rout-
ing protocol, and it cannot work with Cellular IPv4 networks.
The handoff procedure in MMTHWMN [59] is not efficient
and reliable because the handoff procedure of the mobile
node in MMTHWMN [59] is controlled by another mobile
node located in the base-station coverage area. The packet
transmission, route discovery, and handoff in MMTHWMN
[59] are not transparent to the MANET mobile nodes. The
mobile node located in the base station coverage area sends a
proxy-RU on behalf of each mobile host having an active con-
nection with it to the base station, and it send a gratuitous
RREP packet with a Cellular IPv6 beacon on behalf of base
station-to-mobile nodes, and this dependency on another
mobile nodes make it not efficient nor reliable for fast mobili-
ty and handoff. And none of the above surveyed integration
protocols employ IP micro-mobility protocols for supporting
mobility between different overlapping and nonoverlapping
MANETs with multiple access points within domain and sup-
port fast handoff, whereas such a proposal is recommended
for integrating MANET to infrastructure networks and sup-
port fast handoff. Mobile IP, described above, is the most
widely known IP mobility management proposal that supports
host mobility. It is designed to enable the mobile node to
change its point of attachment (access point) without chang-
ing the IP address. When the mobile node leaves the current
network and enters a new foreign network domain, it acquires
a new IP address called IP CoA and informs its HA about the
new IP CoA. Mobile IP is an optimal solution for macro-
mobility support and slow-moving mobile nodes, but it has
limitations in the micro-mobility environment with frequent
handoff and high-speed movement of mobile nodes, which
requires sending a registration message for each handoff to a
possibly distant HA, which increases handoff latency and load
on the global Internet. Many solutions have been developed
to efficiently support local mobility inside IP wireless net-
works, such as Cellular IP, HAWAII, and HMIP, which are
called IP micro-mobility protocols. IP micro-mobility proto-
cols [3] are proposed to overcome Mobile IP drawbacks. They
aim to support fast handoff with minimum packet loss and to
minimize signaling overhead. There are a number of issues
that motivate the design of IP micro-mobility protocols: fast
handoff, IP paging, fast security/AAA services, and quality of
service (QOS) support. IP micro-mobility protocols are
designed to manage local movement (within the domain) of
mobile nodes without interaction with the HAs. This leads to
a decrease in handoff delay and packet loss during handoff
and a reduction of the signaling load experienced by Mobile
IP registration in core networks, so that the wireless access
network can scale a very large number of mobile subscribers.
The IP micro-mobility protocols can also interwork with
Mobile IP to handle movement between domains.
Due to the trend in fourth generation (4G) wireless net-
works towards All-IP networks, and the drawbacks of Mobile
IP and the advantages of IP micro-mobility protocols, and due
to the drawbacks and limitations of the surveyed integration
solutions, we present a framework for integrating cellular IP
access network and MANETs. The integration in such a way
supports MANET nodes mobility between different nonover-
lapping and overlapping MANETs with multiple gateways,
and due to mobility between different nonoverlapping and
overlapping MANETs and between multiple gateways, fast
handoff is very necessary and important to decrease packet
loss and service disruption for the MANET nodes. The pro-
posed framework works with any Cellular IP or AODV ver-
sion. The proposed framework is totally transparent to the
MANET mobile nodes because it uses tunneling for packet
transmission to the base station. The proposed framework

supports many different routing scenarios, as described in
[60].
The Cellular IP protocol, described above, is one of the
prominent solutions for IP micro-mobility support. It is devel-
oped to handle the mobile node mobility within the adminis-
trative domain of the wireless access network. The Cellular IP
protocol intends to provide local mobility (within the domain)
and interworks with Mobile IP in order to provide macro-
mobility support (between domains). The protocol supports
fast handoff and paging techniques. Micro-mobility support in
a Cellular IP network is a more important issue than in the
other micro-mobility protocols; due to its simplicity, Cellular
IP can efficiently support hundreds of thousands of mobile
nodes in a small local area network. Therefore, Cellular IP
has been chosen for our integration architecture and protocol.
We believe that the integration of MANETs with IP micro-
mobility protocols is a better solution than integration of
MANETs with Mobile IP for mobility in the micro-mobility
environment, such that the advantages of IP micro-mobility
protocols can be employed to support MANET mobile nodes
fast mobility and handoff.
INTEGRATED NETWORK ARCHITECTURE
The proposed integrated network architecture, depicted in
Fig. 11., consists of:
• Multiple overlaid and nonoverlaid MANETs
• Access points, which are Cellular IP base stationss that
run the AODV routing protocol on the wireless interface
and are connected using a wire link to other Cellular IP
nodes and the Cellular IP gateway
• Cellular IP nodes and a Cellular IP gateway, which are
used to establish forwarding entries for mobile nodes and
forward data packet from/to the Internet
• Mobile nodes (MNs), which use their IP home address
for all communication with the Internet
PROTOCOL DESIGN
In the following, a description of the protocol design issues
and some algorithmic details of the proposed integrated rout-
ing protocol are presented.
Periodic Beacon Signal Message — In this framework, base
stations periodically announce their presence on the MANET
through broadcasting beacon signal messages. When a mobile
node receives a beacon signal, if it is not interested in Internet
connectivity, it simply rebroadcasts the beacon signal message
to its neighbor nodes. If a mobile node wants Internet access,
it extracts the address of base station and the beacon signal
sequence number, and saves them in a list of base stations.
The mobile node should send an encapsulated route update
and page update messages to the base station. Every mobile
node should rebroadcast the bea-
con signal message to its neighbor-
ing nodes, and so on. In the
proposed integrated protocol, the
beacon signal should flood to all
mobile nodes in MANET. The
time-to-live (TTL) field should be
set to the maximum diameter of
the MANET. In the proposed pro-
tocol, it is assumed that at least
one mobile node should be located
in the base station coverage area,
in order to broadcast the received
beacon signal messages to other
mobile nodes in the MANET. The base station IP address
and beacon signal sequence number are used for preventing
reprocessing and rebroadcasting of duplicate beacon signals.
It is also used for locating new base stations and creating a
default route entry in mobile nodes for the selected base sta-
tion. When a mobile node receives a beacon signal message, it
checks the beacon message IP address and sequence number.
If the beacon signal message is received, the mobile node con-
cludes that the beacon signal message is a duplicated message
and it discards it.
Route Discovery and Transmission of Packets — It is
assumed that mobile nodes in an ad hoc network that want
Internet access use their home addresses for all communica-
tion with the base station and gateway node in cellular IP
access network. The base station should run the AODV rout-
ing protocol in its wireless interface. When a mobile node
wants to send data packets to a destination address, it uses a
route discovery procedure of the AODV routing protocol to
search for that destination address. If the destination is found
in the ad hoc network, the mobile node sends data packets
according to the AODV routing protocol. If the destination is
not found, the mobile node concludes that the destination
host is not in MANET, and performs a routing table lookup
for the IP address of the base station according to default
route entry and tunnels data packets to the base station. The
base station decapsulates these packets and sends them to the
uplink port towards the gateway node. Then, the gateway
node sends these packets to the destination node according to
its routing table. The destination node may be a node in the
Internet or a node in another MANET in the same Cellular
IP access network.
Before the mobile node can tunnel data packets to the
base station, it should establish the routing entries in the rout-
ing cache of each Cellular IP node in the path from the base
station to the gateway node. The mobile node should send an
encapsulated route update message to base station according
to the default route.
Route Update and Page Update Messages — Mobile
nodes in the proposed integrated protocol use the same rout-
ing update and page update procedures used in the ordinary
Cellular IP protocol to establish the routing entries in the
routing cache of each Cellular IP node in the path from the
base station to the gateway node, with the exception that the
route update messages and page update messages may have
to traverse multiple hops before reaching the base station.
The proposed integrated protocol tunnels route update and
page update messages to the base station, and forwards these
messages based on the AODV routing protocol.
Movement Detection and Multiple Base Stations — In
ordinary Cellular IP access networks, only mobile nodes in the
nFigure 11. Integrated network architecture.
CN: Corresponding node.
GW: Gateway.
CIP node: Cellular IP node.
BS: Base station.
MN: Mobile node.
MANET: Mobile Ad Hoc network
BS3BS2
GW
CN
CIP node
MANET2MANET1 MANET3BS1
MN10
MN11
MN8
MN7
MN9MN5
MN6
Overlap MANETs
Non-overlap MANETs
MN1
MN2
MN4
MN3
Internet

coverage area of the base station can receive a beacon signal
message. If the mobile node receives a beacon signal from
another base station, it immediately decides to initiate a hand-
off. This movement detection is called Eager Cell Switching
(ECS) [1]. In the integrated protocol, there can be multiple
hops between a mobile node and the base station. MANETs
can be overlapped, such that there is no clear boundary
between these MANETs, and the mobile node can receive
beacon signal messages from more than one base station.
Therefore, the movement detection algorithm used in the
ordinary Cellular IP cannot be used in the proposed protocol.
Another movement detection algorithm has been used. The
movement detection used in the proposed protocol is based
on the hop count from the base station to the mobile node,
such that the mobile node can decide whether or not to
change its base station. The mobile node should change its
base station and initiate handoff to new base station if the
number of hops to the new base station is less than number of
hops to old base station. The hop count can be obtained from
the beacon signal messages recorded in the base station list in
the mobile node. Another situation, where the mobile node
can detect the move and change its base station and initiate
the handoff, when the mobile node misses two consecutive
beacon signal intervals form the current base station, or the
route to old base station becomes invalid due to mobility or
route expiration.
Handoff Algorithms — A modification to the ordinary Cel-
lular IP handoff schemes is proposed for the proposed proto-
col. Modified hard handoff (MHH) is used when a mobile
node moves from one MANET to another, and these
MANETs are not overlapped. Also, hard handoff can be used
when the mobile node loses the connection with the old base
station or the route to the old base station becomes invalid.
Modified semi-soft handoff (MSH) is used when a mobile
node moves between overlapped MANETs and the hop count
to the new base station is less than the hop count to the old
base station.
CONCLUSION
A fixed infrastructure network and mobile ad hoc networks
(MANETs) can be combined to make them work together in
order to set up a multihop path between MANET nodes and
fixed infrastructure base stations, and allow MANET to
obtain Internet connectivity. Integrating a fixed infrastructure
network with a MANET provides many advantages for both
the infrastructure network and the MANET network together.
The MANET nodes can access the Internet and access a wide
range of Internet services. MANET nodes can move to differ-
ent MANETs without losing the connection. The fixed infra-
structure network can be extended to include dead zones and
cover long areas. The number of base stations (access points)
can be decreased.
This article has presented a comprehensive survey of solu-
tions for integrating MANETs with the Internet using IP
mobility protocols. Several integration solutions have been
investigated and their limitations have also been dealt with. A
comparison of several integration solutions has been conduct-
ed based on metrics such as the type of MANET routing pro-
tocol, mobility management type, Gateway discovery, the
packet transmission method, agent advertisement, and the
movement detection method.
We have observed that some proposals have tried to sup-
port micro-mobility by integrating Mobile IP with MANETs,
and only one of them has tried to utilize the advantages of the
IP micro-mobility protocol. Also, the trend towards all-IP net-
works enforces the integration of MANETs with micro-mobil-
ity access networks, so that more research work is required. In
this article, we point out the motivations for the design effi-
cient integration architecture for the micro-mobility environ-
ment. A framework for integrating Cellular IP access network
and MANETs is proposed. We believe that this approach is a
better approach for mobility management with in domain. For
future work, the proposed framework should be implemented
and studied with different routing scenarios.
REFERENCES
[1] C. Perkins, Mobile IP, Design Principles and Practices, New
York: Addison Wesley, (1998).
[2] C. Perkins, “IP Mobility Support for IPv4,” IETF RFC 3344, Aug.
2002.
[3] A. T. Campbell and Javirer, “IP Micro-Mobility Protocols,” ACM
SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Commun. Review, ACM
Press, vol. 4, issue 4, Oct. 2000, pp. 45–53 .
[4] N. A. Fikouras et al., “Performance of TCP and UDP during
Mobile IP Handoffs in Single-Agent Subnetwork,” Proc. Wire-
less Commun. and Net. Conf.‚ 1999 (WCNC), New Orleans, LA,
Sept. 1999.
[5] N. A. Fikouras et al., “Performance Analysis of Mobile IP hand-
offs,” Proc. Asia Pacific Microwave Conf.‚ 1999 (APMC), Singa-
pore, Dec. 1999.
[6] A. Valko, “Cellular IP: A New Approach to Internet Host Mobil-
ity,” ACM SIGCOMM Comp. Commun. Rev., vol. 29, no. 1, Jan.
1999, pp. 50–65.
[7] A. T. Campbell et al., Cellular IP, Internet draft, draft-ietf-
mobileip-cellularip-00.txt, Jan. 2000, (Work in progress). Avail-
able: http://comet.columbia.edu/cellularip/pub/draft-ietf-
mobileip-cellularip-00.txt
[8] A. T. et al., “Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Cellu-
lar IP,” IEEE Pers. Commun., Aug. 2000,pp. 42–49.
[9] R. Ramjee et al., IP Micro-Mobility Support using HAWAII,
Internet draft, draft-ietf-mobileip-hawaii-01.txt, July 2000,
(work in progress), available: http://comet.columbia.edu/micro-
mobility/pub/draft-ietf-mobileip-hawaii-00.txt
[10] R. Ramjee et al., “HAWAII: a Domain-based Approach for
Supporting Mobility in Wide-area Wireless Networks,”
IEEE/ACM Trans. Net., June 2002, vol. 10, pp. 396–410.
[11] E. Fogelstroem, A. Jonsson, and C. Perkins, “Mobile IPv4
Regional Registration,” IETF Internet-Draft,draft-ietf-mip4-reg-
tunnel-03, Aug. 22, 2006, work in progress, available:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-reg-tunnel-
03.txt
[12] C. Perkins, Ad Hoc Networking, New York: Addison Wesley,
2000.
[13] C. K. Toh, Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks Protocols and
Systems, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002.
[14] P. Reinbold and B. Olivier, “A Survey of IP Micro-Mobility Pro-
tocols,” Technical Report Infonet-2002-06, Mar. 2002.
[15] I. F. Akyildiz, J. Xie, and S. Mohanty, “A Survey of Mobility
Management in Next Generation All-IP-Based Wireless System,”
IEEE Wireless Commun., Aug. 2004.
[16] D. Saha et al., “A Mobility Support in IP: A Survey of Related
Protocols,” IEEE Network, Nov./Dec. 2004.
[17] Thomas R. Henderson, Boeing Phantom Works, “Host Mobili-
ty for IP Networks: A comparison,” IEEE Network, Nov./Dec.
2003.
[18] D. Saha et al., “Mobility Support in IP: A Survey of Related
Protocols,” IEEE Network, Nov./Dec. 2004.
[19] C. Perkins and D. Johnson, “Route Optimization in Mobile
IP,” IETF Internet draft, draft-ietf-mobileip-optim-11.txt, Sept.
2001, (Work in Progress), available: http://www.monarch.cs.
rice.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mobileip-optim-09.txt
[20] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, “Mobility Support in
IPv6,” RFC 3775, June 2004.
[21] S. E. Deering and R. M. Hinden, “Internet Protocol version 6
(IPv6) specification,” Internet Request For Comments RFC
1883, Dec. 1995.
[22] T. Narten, E. Nordmark, and W. Simpson, “IPv6 Neighbor Dis-

covery,” RFC 2461, Dec. 1998.
[23] B. Volz, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6) Relay Agent Remote-ID Option,” RFC 4649, Aug.
2006.
[24] D. Haskin and E. Allen, “IP Version 6 over PPP,” RFC 2472,
Dec. 1998.
[25] A. O’Neill, M. S. Corson, and G. Tsirtsis, “Routing and Hand-
off in the Edge Mobility Architecture,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile
Computing and Commun. Review, vol. 4, issue 4 (Oct. 2000),
pp. 54–66.
[26] S. Das et al., “TeleMIP: Telecommunication Enhanced Mobile
IP Architecture for Fast Intra-Domain Mobility,” IEEE Pers.
Commun. Systems Mag., (Aug. 2000), vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 50–58.
[27] A. T. Campbell et al., “Comparison of IP micro-mobility pro-
tocol,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 9, no. 1, Feb. 2002.
[28] A. Festag, H. Karl, and G. Schaefer, “Current Developments
and Trends in Handover Design for ALL-IP Wireless Networks,”
Technical Report TKN-00-007, Telecommunication Networks
Group, Technische Universität Berlin, Aug. 2000.
[29] W. Stallings, Wireless Communication and Networks, Pearson
Education, Singapore, 2002.
[30] V. Parks and S. Corson, Temporally-Ordered Routing Algo-
rithm (TORA) Version 1: Functional Specification, IETF Internet
draft, Oct. 1999, work in progress, draft-ietf-manet-tora-
spec-02.txt
[31] S. Das et al., “IDMP: An Intradomain Mobility Management
Protocol for Next-Generation Wireless Networks,” IEEE Wireless
Commun., June 2002.
[32] E. M. Royer and C.-K. Toh, “A Review of Current Routing Pro-
tocols for Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks,” IEEE Pers. Com-
mun. Mag., 1999, pp. 46–55.
[33] S. Sesay, Z. Yang, and J. He, “A Survey on Mobile Ad Hoc
Wireless Network,” Info. Tech. J., vol. 3, no. 2, 2004, pp.
168–75.
[34] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic Destination-
Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Com-
puters,” Proc. SIGCOM ’94 Conf. Commun. Architecture,
Protocols and Applications, Aug. 1994, pp. 234–44.
[35] C. E. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Highly Dynamic Destination-
Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing (DSDV) for Mobile Com-
puters,” Comp. Commun. Rev., Oct. 1994, pp. 234–44.
[36] P. Jacquet et al., “Optimized Link State Routing Protocol for
Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc. 5th IEEE Multi Topic Conf. (INMIC
2001), 2001.
[37] T. Clausen and P. Jacquet, Eds., “Optimized Link State Rout-
ing Protocol (OLSR),” RFC 3626, Oct. 2003.
[38] C. E. Perkins, E. M. Royer, “Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vec-
tor (AODV) Routing,” RFC 3561, July 2003.
[39] C.-C. Chiang, “Routing in Clustered Multihop, Mobile Wire-
less Networks with Fading Channel,” Proc. IEEE SICON ’97,
Apr. 1997, pp. 197–211.
[40] S. Murthy and J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “An Efficient Routing
Protocol for Wireless Networks,” ACM Mobile Networks and
App. J., special issue on Routing in Mobile Commun. Net-
works, vol. 1, no. 2,Oct. 1996, pp. 183–97.
[41] D. B. Johnson and D. A. Maltz, “Dynamic Source Routing in
ad hoc Wireless Networks,” Mobile Computing, Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, 1996, vol. 353, pp. 153–81.
[42] M. S. Corson and A. Ephremides, “A Distributed Routing
Algorithm for Mobile Wireless Networks,” ACM J. Wireless
Networks, Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 1, issue 1, vol. 1,
Feb. 1995, pp. 61–81.
[43] C.-K. Toh , “A Novel Distributed Routing Protocol To Support
Ad hoc Mobile Computing,” IEEE 15th Annual Int’l. Phoenix
Conf. Computers and Commun., IEEE IPCCC 1996, 27–29. Mar.
1996, Phoenix, AZ, USA, pp. 480–86.
[44] U. Jonsson et al., “MIPMANET — Mobile IP for Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks,” Proc. 1st Wksp. Mobile Ad hoc Network and
Computing (MobiHOC’00), Boston, Massachusetts, Aug. 2000,
pp. 75–85.
[45] P. Ratanchandani and R. Kravets, “A Hybrid Approach to
Internet Connectivity for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks,” Proc. IEEE
WCNC 2003, vol. 3, Mar. 2003, pp. 1522–27.
[46] B. A. Kock and J. R. Schmidt, “Dynamic Mobile IP Routers in
Ad Hoc Networks,” IWWAN 2004, Int’l. Wksp. Wireless Ad-hoc
Networks, OULU FINLAND, June 2004.
[47] H. Lei and C.E. Perkins, “Ad Hoc Networking with Mobile IP,”
Proc. 2nd European Pers. Mobile Commun. Conf. (EPMCC ’97),
IEE, 1997, pp. 197–202.
[48] E. M. Belding-Royer and C. E. Perkins, “Global Connectivity
for IPv4 Mobile Ad hoc Networks,” IETF Internet draft, draft-
royer-manet-globalv4-00.txt, 14 Nov. 2001, work in progress,
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ebelding/txt/globalv4.txt
[49] M. Ergen and A. Puri, “MEWLANA-MOBILE IP: Enriched Wire-
less Local Area Network Architecture,” Proc. IEEE Vehic. Tech.
Conf., Canada, Sept. 2002, pp. 2449–53.
[50] Y. Sun, E. Belding-Royer, and C. Perkins, “Internet Connectivi-
ty for Ad hoc Mobile Networks,” Int’l. J. Wireless Information
Networks, special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs):
Standards, Research, Applications, vol. 9, no. 2, Apr. 2002.
[51] Y.-C. Tseng, C.-C. Shen, and W.-T. Chen, “Mobile IP and Ad
Hoc Networks: An Integration and Implementation Experi-
ence,” IEEE Computer, vol. 36, no. 5, May 2003, pp. 48–55.
[52] R. Wakikawa et al., “Global Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks,” IETF Internet draft, Feb. 2003, work in
progress.
[53] M. Benzaid, P. Minet, and K. A. Agha, “A Framework for
Integrating Mobile-IP and OLSR Ad-Hoc Networking for Future
Wireless Mobile Systems,” 1st Mediterranean Ad-Hoc Networks
Wksp. (Med-Hoc-Net), Sardegna Italy, Sept. 2002.
[54] M. Benzaid et al., “Integration of Mobile-IP and OLSR for a
Universal Mobility, Wireless Networks,” special issue on Ad-hoc
Networking, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 10,
issue 4, July 2004, pp. 377–88.
[55] B. Xie and A. Kumar, “Integrated Connectivity Framework for
Internet and Ad hoc Networks,” 1st IEEE Int’l. Conf. Mobile
Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems, Oct. 24–27, 2004, Fort Laud-
erdale, Florida, USA.
[56] M. Michalak and T. Braun, “Common Gateway Architecture
for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks,” 2nd Annual Conf. Wireless On-
demand Network Systems and Services (WONS’05), 2005, pp.
70–75.
[57] C. Hedrick, Routing Information Protocol, RFC 1058, June
1988.
[58] C. Perkins and P. Bhagwat, “Routing over Multi-hop wireless
Network of Mobile Computers,” SIGCOMM ’94, Computer
Commun. Review, vol. 24, no. 4, Oct. 1994, pp. 234–44.
[59] T. Ville, “Micro-Mobility within Wireless Ad Hoc Networks:
Towards Hybrid Wireless Multihop Networks,” Diploma Thesis,
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Oulu, Oulu,
Finland, 2001.
[60] F. M. Abduljalil and S. K. Bodhe, “Integrated Routing Proto-
col (IRP) for Integration of Cellular IP and Mobile Ad Hoc Net-
works,” IEEE Int’l. Conf. Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and
Trustworthy Computing, vol. 1, SUTC’06, Taiwan, 2006, pp.
312–15.
BIOGRAPHIES
FEKRI M. A. ABDULJALIL (fekri@cs.unipune.ernet.in) received a B.Sc.
degree in computer science from Baghdad University, Iraq, in
1997 and avMaster of Computer Science degree from University
of Pune, India, in 2002. Currently, he is a Ph.D. scholar in the
Computer Science Department, Pune University, India. His
research area of interests includes computer networks, mobile
computing, IP mobility protocols, Mobile Ad hoc Routing proto-
cols, and analysis and design of protocols.
SHRIKANT K. BODHE (s_k_bodhe@indiatimes.com) received a bache-
lors degree in electronics and telecommunication in 1983, an M.E.
degree in 1987, and a Ph.D. degree in 1997, from Shivaji Universi-
ty, Kolhapur, India. Currently, he is a professor of E&TC engineer-
ing, JSPM’s Rajarshi Shahu College of Engineering, University of
Pune. His research area of interests includes mobile communica-
tion, computer networks, mobile computing, and analysis and
design of protocols.

A survey of integrating ip mobilitly protocols and mobile ad hoc networks

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to A survey of integrating ip mobilitly protocols and mobile ad hoc networks (20)

A survey of integrating ip mobilitly protocols and mobile ad hoc networks