![Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics
ISSN: 2302-9285
Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2017, pp. 311~316, DOI: 10.11591/eei.v6i4.850 311
Received September 10, 2017; Revised November 11, 2017; Accepted November 25, 2017
Throughput and Handover Latency Evaluation for
Multicast Proxy Mobile IPV6
Azana Hafizah Mohd Aman, Aisha-Hassan A. Hashim*, Huda Adibah Mohd Ramli
Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia,
Jalan Gombak 53100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
*Corresponding author, e-mail: aisha@iium.edu.my
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to present performance analysis of a new enhanced mobile
multicast network mobility management scheme. The initial developed network mobility management
called Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is based on unicast network support. This paper enabled multicast
support in network mobility management and named it as MPMIPv6. Additionally this enhancement also
provides better network performance with the new context transfer operations and fast reroute operations.
In brief, this paper also describes other current mobile multicast schemes. The new scheme is evaluated
using mathematical analysis and NS3.19 simulator. Theoretically this scheme reduces service recovery
time, total signalling cost, handover latency, and packet loss for multicast communication. However for this
paper, the analysed parameters are throughput and handover latency. Both mathematical and simulation
results exhibit better network performance for multicast environment compared to the standard benchmark
scheme.
Keywords: multicast, network mobility, mobile multicast, network mobility management
1. Introduction
This paper presents a new scheme for network mobility management. It is an
improvement of operations by enhancing multicast mobility using Context Transfer (CT) [1] and
Multicast Only Fast Reroute [2]. With this new enhanced scheme multicast is successfully
enabled with better content delivery. The multicast contents are transferred in advance. The
contents are carried out using two different routes, in order to ensure the delivery of the packets
to the mobile node. This new operations provide better handover performance and at the same
time enhance the mobile multicast. The design goals are to minimize the time needed to
reestablish the multicast service as much as possible and to minimize the possibility of losing
multicast packets.
PMIPv6 [3] is an enhancement to the basic IP mobility for IPv6 hosts that are specified
in MIPv6 [4-5]. PMIPv6 is a network mobility management to ease the IP mobility problems. By
extending MIPv6 signaling messages between a network node and a home agent (HA), PMIPv6
makes it possible to provide mobility for IPv6 nodes without requiring host involvement. A proxy
mobility agent in the network does the mobility management on behalf of the mobile node
attached to the network.
MLDv2 [6] is a component of the IPv6. MLDv2 is used to discover multicast listeners by
IPv6 routers and to determine group membership on a network segment, also known as a link
or subnet on a directly attached link. Multicast traffic is processed by multiple hosts. Multicast
traffic is sent and processed by host that belong to the multicast group receive in the group's
reserved address.
CTP [1] is used to transfer context of services. Mobile nodes (MN) with context transfers
support allow applications running on it to operate under minimal disturbance. Context Transfers
Protocol is applied to support optimized handover. It leads to optimized mobile node
performance in mobile multicast environment. CTP reduces latency, packet losses and
minimizing the re-establishment of services from scratch.
MFR [2] is basically a mechanism to minimizing packet loss issue. MFR is a self-detect
network failure. MFR defines a primary path and a secondary path. Data packets are sent over
both paths, the primary and secondary paths. But only packets from the primary are accepted](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1850-210608033604/85/Throughput-and-Handover-Latency-Evaluation-for-Multicast-Proxy-Mobile-IPV6-1-320.jpg)
![ ISSN: 2302-9285
Bulletin of EEI Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2017 : 311 – 316
314
Figure 4. Inter domain handover flow chart for the enhanced scheme
3. Results and Analysis
In data transmission, network throughput is the amount of data moved successfully from
one place to another in a given time period [7]. It is the number of messages successfully
delivered per unit time. In this paper the throughput is extracted from the simulation process.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1850-210608033604/85/Throughput-and-Handover-Latency-Evaluation-for-Multicast-Proxy-Mobile-IPV6-4-320.jpg)
![Bulletin of EEI ISSN: 2302-9285
Throughput and Handover Latency Evaluation for Multicast… (Azana Hafizah Mohd Aman)
315
Figure 5 illustrates the UDP throughput with respect to simulation time in second. It can
be seen from the figure that when time increases, the throughput for both schemes decreases
as the mobile node speed increases. The throughput for the benchmark is lower than the
proposed scheme and keeps getting lower with higher decrease rate than the proposed
scheme.
At simulation time 500 seconds, the proposed scheme performed more than 50%
compared to the benchmark. The drop of throughput faced by the benchmark is due to the
changes of MN which is from old location to new location. As for the proposed scheme there is
hardly any significant drop of throughput. This is due to the fact that when the time increases,
the load time of the multicast session increases largely resulting long access time and
congestion. In the proposed scheme, the MNs do not involve with the registration processes
therefore resulted in a steady throughput increment as number of packets increases accordingly
with simulation time. In the proposed scheme, the throughput efficiency is improved due to the
benefit of CT-MFR predictive approach.
Figure 5. UDP throughput versus simulation time (s)
As indicated in Figure 6 the handover latency simulation result for the proposed scheme
is 0.04s. The simulation result is nearly close to the mathematical results which is 0.07s. The
range of handover latency value is between 0.04s to 0.17s as the simulation time increased.
The handover latency is defined as the time needed for the MN to change its point of
attachment from one network connection to another [8]. Let γ denoted as handover latency, Ils
as link switching delay, IRD denoted as router discovery delay. Table 1 summarizes the
parameters for γm, γc, and γcmfr [8].
Table 1 Parameters for Handover Latency
Parameter Description Value (ms)
IpMAGnMAG the time interval between pMAG and nMAG 10
ILMAnMAG the time interval between LMA and nMAG 10
IMNnMAG the time interval between MN and nMAG 12
IRD router discovery delay 10
The handover latency for each solution is defined as below:
The handover latency for Multicast PMIPv6, m, is expressed in equation 1:
m=IRD+4IMNnMAG+3ILMAnMAG (1)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1850-210608033604/85/Throughput-and-Handover-Latency-Evaluation-for-Multicast-Proxy-Mobile-IPV6-5-320.jpg)
![ ISSN: 2302-9285
Bulletin of EEI Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2017 : 311 – 316
316
In case of Multicast PMIPv6 with CT, the handover latency, c ,is described in equation 2:
c=2IpMAGnMAG+3ILMAnMAG (2)
As for the Multicast PMIPv6 with CT-MFR, the handover latency, cmfr is , shown in
equation 3:
cmfr=IpMAGnMAG+ILMAnMAG (3)
Figure 6. Handover latency (ms) versus link delay (ms)
4. Conclusion
A new scheme in mobility management protocol that integrates mobility with multicast is
introduced. A new scheme that enhances mobile multicast with context transfer and multicast
fast reroute is introduced. Multicast enabled PMIPv6 with CT-MFR improves the handover
latency of 63% better than the benchmark PMIPv6. Multicast enabled PMIPv6 with CT-MFR
presents throughput by total of 25% from the benchmarked scheme. Even though this work has
successfully shown improvement in reducing handover latency, and throughput, further
improvement is always welcome. As a future work, it is recommended to do real time simulation
scenarios using hardware equipment such as mobile stations and wireless network devices.
References
[1] Loughney, M Nakhjiri, C Perkins, R Koodli. Context Transfer Protocol. RFC 4067. 2005.
[2] A Karan, C Filsfils, IJ Wijnands, B Decraene. Multicast Only Fasr Reroute (MoFRR). RFC 7431, 2015
[3] Gundavelli S, Ed Leung, K Devarapalli, V Chowdhury K, B Patil. Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6). RFC
5213. 2008.
[4] Johnson D, Perkins C, J Arkko. Mobility support in IPv6. RFC 3775. 2004.
[5] Ismat Aldmour, Thair Al-Dala’in, Lelyzar Siregar, Rahmat Budiarto. SeamSAR: Seamless, Secure and
Robust Handover Model for Mobile IPTV Network Using Enhanced FMIPv6. International Journal of
Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE). April 2015; 5(2): 371-378.
[6] R Vida, L Costa. Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6. RFC 3810. 2004.
[7] Farouk Abdul Jalin, Raed Alsaqour. A Simulation Study of Proxy Mobile IPV6 (PMIPV6) Protocol.
Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. April 2016; 11(7): 4701-4706.
[8] Adnan J Jabir, S Shamala, Z Zuriati. A New Strategy for Signalling Overhead Reduction in the Proxy
Mobile IPv6 Protocol. Am. J. of Applied Sci. 2012; 9(4): 535-541.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/1850-210608033604/85/Throughput-and-Handover-Latency-Evaluation-for-Multicast-Proxy-Mobile-IPV6-6-320.jpg)
Throughput and Handover Latency Evaluation for Multicast Proxy Mobile IPV6
- 1. Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics ISSN: 2302-9285 Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2017, pp. 311~316, DOI: 10.11591/eei.v6i4.850 311 Received September 10, 2017; Revised November 11, 2017; Accepted November 25, 2017 Throughput and Handover Latency Evaluation for Multicast Proxy Mobile IPV6 Azana Hafizah Mohd Aman, Aisha-Hassan A. Hashim*, Huda Adibah Mohd Ramli Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak 53100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia *Corresponding author, e-mail: aisha@iium.edu.my Abstract The objective of this paper is to present performance analysis of a new enhanced mobile multicast network mobility management scheme. The initial developed network mobility management called Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is based on unicast network support. This paper enabled multicast support in network mobility management and named it as MPMIPv6. Additionally this enhancement also provides better network performance with the new context transfer operations and fast reroute operations. In brief, this paper also describes other current mobile multicast schemes. The new scheme is evaluated using mathematical analysis and NS3.19 simulator. Theoretically this scheme reduces service recovery time, total signalling cost, handover latency, and packet loss for multicast communication. However for this paper, the analysed parameters are throughput and handover latency. Both mathematical and simulation results exhibit better network performance for multicast environment compared to the standard benchmark scheme. Keywords: multicast, network mobility, mobile multicast, network mobility management 1. Introduction This paper presents a new scheme for network mobility management. It is an improvement of operations by enhancing multicast mobility using Context Transfer (CT) [1] and Multicast Only Fast Reroute [2]. With this new enhanced scheme multicast is successfully enabled with better content delivery. The multicast contents are transferred in advance. The contents are carried out using two different routes, in order to ensure the delivery of the packets to the mobile node. This new operations provide better handover performance and at the same time enhance the mobile multicast. The design goals are to minimize the time needed to reestablish the multicast service as much as possible and to minimize the possibility of losing multicast packets. PMIPv6 [3] is an enhancement to the basic IP mobility for IPv6 hosts that are specified in MIPv6 [4-5]. PMIPv6 is a network mobility management to ease the IP mobility problems. By extending MIPv6 signaling messages between a network node and a home agent (HA), PMIPv6 makes it possible to provide mobility for IPv6 nodes without requiring host involvement. A proxy mobility agent in the network does the mobility management on behalf of the mobile node attached to the network. MLDv2 [6] is a component of the IPv6. MLDv2 is used to discover multicast listeners by IPv6 routers and to determine group membership on a network segment, also known as a link or subnet on a directly attached link. Multicast traffic is processed by multiple hosts. Multicast traffic is sent and processed by host that belong to the multicast group receive in the group's reserved address. CTP [1] is used to transfer context of services. Mobile nodes (MN) with context transfers support allow applications running on it to operate under minimal disturbance. Context Transfers Protocol is applied to support optimized handover. It leads to optimized mobile node performance in mobile multicast environment. CTP reduces latency, packet losses and minimizing the re-establishment of services from scratch. MFR [2] is basically a mechanism to minimizing packet loss issue. MFR is a self-detect network failure. MFR defines a primary path and a secondary path. Data packets are sent over both paths, the primary and secondary paths. But only packets from the primary are accepted
- 2. ISSN: 2302-9285 Bulletin of EEI Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2017 : 311 – 316 312 and forwarded while the packets from the secondary are discarded. When a failure is detected on the path to the primary, the repair occurs by changing the secondary into the primary and the primary into the secondary. Since the repair is local, it is fast hence improving convergence times in the event of node or link failures on the path to the primary. 2. Research Method This paper evaluates the enhanced scheme using mathemathical and simulation methods. Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the process involves in mobile multicast communication. Figure 1 defines the enhanced scheme signaling call flow for intra domain multicast network. While Figure 2 defines the enhanced scheme signaling call flow in inter domain multicast network. Figure 1. MPMIPv6 with CT-MFR intra domain handover signalling call flow Figure 2. MPMIPv6 with CT-MFR inter domain handover signalling call flow Figure 3 explains the enhanced scheme flow chart in intra domain multicast network. Figure 4 explains the enhanced scheme flow chart in inter domain multicast network.
- 3. Bulletin of EEI ISSN: 2302-9285 Throughput and Handover Latency Evaluation for Multicast… (Azana Hafizah Mohd Aman) 313 Figure 3. Intra domain handover flow chart for the enhanced scheme
- 4. ISSN: 2302-9285 Bulletin of EEI Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2017 : 311 – 316 314 Figure 4. Inter domain handover flow chart for the enhanced scheme 3. Results and Analysis In data transmission, network throughput is the amount of data moved successfully from one place to another in a given time period [7]. It is the number of messages successfully delivered per unit time. In this paper the throughput is extracted from the simulation process.
- 5. Bulletin of EEI ISSN: 2302-9285 Throughput and Handover Latency Evaluation for Multicast… (Azana Hafizah Mohd Aman) 315 Figure 5 illustrates the UDP throughput with respect to simulation time in second. It can be seen from the figure that when time increases, the throughput for both schemes decreases as the mobile node speed increases. The throughput for the benchmark is lower than the proposed scheme and keeps getting lower with higher decrease rate than the proposed scheme. At simulation time 500 seconds, the proposed scheme performed more than 50% compared to the benchmark. The drop of throughput faced by the benchmark is due to the changes of MN which is from old location to new location. As for the proposed scheme there is hardly any significant drop of throughput. This is due to the fact that when the time increases, the load time of the multicast session increases largely resulting long access time and congestion. In the proposed scheme, the MNs do not involve with the registration processes therefore resulted in a steady throughput increment as number of packets increases accordingly with simulation time. In the proposed scheme, the throughput efficiency is improved due to the benefit of CT-MFR predictive approach. Figure 5. UDP throughput versus simulation time (s) As indicated in Figure 6 the handover latency simulation result for the proposed scheme is 0.04s. The simulation result is nearly close to the mathematical results which is 0.07s. The range of handover latency value is between 0.04s to 0.17s as the simulation time increased. The handover latency is defined as the time needed for the MN to change its point of attachment from one network connection to another [8]. Let γ denoted as handover latency, Ils as link switching delay, IRD denoted as router discovery delay. Table 1 summarizes the parameters for γm, γc, and γcmfr [8]. Table 1 Parameters for Handover Latency Parameter Description Value (ms) IpMAGnMAG the time interval between pMAG and nMAG 10 ILMAnMAG the time interval between LMA and nMAG 10 IMNnMAG the time interval between MN and nMAG 12 IRD router discovery delay 10 The handover latency for each solution is defined as below: The handover latency for Multicast PMIPv6, m, is expressed in equation 1: m=IRD+4IMNnMAG+3ILMAnMAG (1)
- 6. ISSN: 2302-9285 Bulletin of EEI Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2017 : 311 – 316 316 In case of Multicast PMIPv6 with CT, the handover latency, c ,is described in equation 2: c=2IpMAGnMAG+3ILMAnMAG (2) As for the Multicast PMIPv6 with CT-MFR, the handover latency, cmfr is , shown in equation 3: cmfr=IpMAGnMAG+ILMAnMAG (3) Figure 6. Handover latency (ms) versus link delay (ms) 4. Conclusion A new scheme in mobility management protocol that integrates mobility with multicast is introduced. A new scheme that enhances mobile multicast with context transfer and multicast fast reroute is introduced. Multicast enabled PMIPv6 with CT-MFR improves the handover latency of 63% better than the benchmark PMIPv6. Multicast enabled PMIPv6 with CT-MFR presents throughput by total of 25% from the benchmarked scheme. Even though this work has successfully shown improvement in reducing handover latency, and throughput, further improvement is always welcome. As a future work, it is recommended to do real time simulation scenarios using hardware equipment such as mobile stations and wireless network devices. References [1] Loughney, M Nakhjiri, C Perkins, R Koodli. Context Transfer Protocol. RFC 4067. 2005. [2] A Karan, C Filsfils, IJ Wijnands, B Decraene. Multicast Only Fasr Reroute (MoFRR). RFC 7431, 2015 [3] Gundavelli S, Ed Leung, K Devarapalli, V Chowdhury K, B Patil. Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6). RFC 5213. 2008. [4] Johnson D, Perkins C, J Arkko. Mobility support in IPv6. RFC 3775. 2004. [5] Ismat Aldmour, Thair Al-Dala’in, Lelyzar Siregar, Rahmat Budiarto. SeamSAR: Seamless, Secure and Robust Handover Model for Mobile IPTV Network Using Enhanced FMIPv6. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE). April 2015; 5(2): 371-378. [6] R Vida, L Costa. Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6. RFC 3810. 2004. [7] Farouk Abdul Jalin, Raed Alsaqour. A Simulation Study of Proxy Mobile IPV6 (PMIPV6) Protocol. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. April 2016; 11(7): 4701-4706. [8] Adnan J Jabir, S Shamala, Z Zuriati. A New Strategy for Signalling Overhead Reduction in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 Protocol. Am. J. of Applied Sci. 2012; 9(4): 535-541.