A Comparative Assessment of Routing for Mobile Networks

Devan Rehunathan; Saleem Noel Bhatti

doi:10.1109/WIMOB.2010.5645029

A Comparative Assessment of Routing for Mobile Networks

Devan Rehunathan, Saleem Noel Bhatti

School of Computer Science

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

Abstract

Wireless mobile devices are becoming increasingly prevalent in society. As a result, aggregation of network connectivity through the use of mobile networks is becoming increasingly relevant to service providers as well as for mobile users. The current approach being pursued within the IETF Mobile Extensions for IPv6 (MEXT) WG, is based on the Network Mobility (NEMO) architecture. NEMO uses IP-in-IP tunnelling for providing mobile network capability on an existing IPv6 network. This approach can result in non-optimal routing between source and destination nodes. Other proposals such as OptiNets extend NEMO and try to address issues such as sub-optimal routing. There are alternative approaches also being proposed, such as the Identifier Locator Network Protocol (ILNPv6), which is based on the use of naming, to enable a flexible and integrated mobile network capability based on IPv6. We have conducted a comparative analysis of the cost of providing optimal routing, in terms of packet and bandwidth overhead, based on an emulation, using data from the London Circle Line metropolitan railway as a scenario. Our analysis shows that these different approaches to mobility offer significantly different performance trade-offs in routing for mobile networks, depending on the constraints of the network scenario.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	WiMob'2010
Subtitle of host publication	2010 IEEE 6th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications
Place of Publication	NEW YORK
Publisher	IEEE
Pages	434-441
Number of pages	8
ISBN (Print)	978-1-4244-7742-5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1109/WIMOB.2010.5645029
Publication status	Published - Oct 2010
Event	6th Annual IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob)/STMWC/NASSUE/CMPA/VECON/AWSAN/AWSAN - Niagara Falls Duration: 11 Oct 2010 → 13 Oct 2010

Conference

Conference	6th Annual IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob)/STMWC/NASSUE/CMPA/VECON/AWSAN/AWSAN
City	Niagara Falls
Period	11/10/10 → 13/10/10

Access to Document

10.1109/WIMOB.2010.5645029

Cite this

@inproceedings{4b180d319dd24d97864d6df0da1e2256,

title = "A Comparative Assessment of Routing for Mobile Networks",

abstract = "Wireless mobile devices are becoming increasingly prevalent in society. As a result, aggregation of network connectivity through the use of mobile networks is becoming increasingly relevant to service providers as well as for mobile users. The current approach being pursued within the IETF Mobile Extensions for IPv6 (MEXT) WG, is based on the Network Mobility (NEMO) architecture. NEMO uses IP-in-IP tunnelling for providing mobile network capability on an existing IPv6 network. This approach can result in non-optimal routing between source and destination nodes. Other proposals such as OptiNets extend NEMO and try to address issues such as sub-optimal routing. There are alternative approaches also being proposed, such as the Identifier Locator Network Protocol (ILNPv6), which is based on the use of naming, to enable a flexible and integrated mobile network capability based on IPv6. We have conducted a comparative analysis of the cost of providing optimal routing, in terms of packet and bandwidth overhead, based on an emulation, using data from the London Circle Line metropolitan railway as a scenario. Our analysis shows that these different approaches to mobility offer significantly different performance trade-offs in routing for mobile networks, depending on the constraints of the network scenario.",

author = "Devan Rehunathan and Bhatti, {Saleem Noel}",

year = "2010",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1109/WIMOB.2010.5645029",

language = "English",

isbn = "978-1-4244-7742-5",

pages = "434--441",

booktitle = "WiMob'2010",

publisher = "IEEE",

note = "6th Annual IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob)/STMWC/NASSUE/CMPA/VECON/AWSAN/AWSAN ; Conference date: 11-10-2010 Through 13-10-2010",

}

Rehunathan, D & Bhatti, SN 2010, A Comparative Assessment of Routing for Mobile Networks. in WiMob'2010: 2010 IEEE 6th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications. IEEE, NEW YORK, pp. 434-441, 6th Annual IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob)/STMWC/NASSUE/CMPA/VECON/AWSAN/AWSAN, Niagara Falls, 11/10/10. https://doi.org/10.1109/WIMOB.2010.5645029

TY - GEN

T1 - A Comparative Assessment of Routing for Mobile Networks

AU - Rehunathan, Devan

AU - Bhatti, Saleem Noel

PY - 2010/10

Y1 - 2010/10

N2 - Wireless mobile devices are becoming increasingly prevalent in society. As a result, aggregation of network connectivity through the use of mobile networks is becoming increasingly relevant to service providers as well as for mobile users. The current approach being pursued within the IETF Mobile Extensions for IPv6 (MEXT) WG, is based on the Network Mobility (NEMO) architecture. NEMO uses IP-in-IP tunnelling for providing mobile network capability on an existing IPv6 network. This approach can result in non-optimal routing between source and destination nodes. Other proposals such as OptiNets extend NEMO and try to address issues such as sub-optimal routing. There are alternative approaches also being proposed, such as the Identifier Locator Network Protocol (ILNPv6), which is based on the use of naming, to enable a flexible and integrated mobile network capability based on IPv6. We have conducted a comparative analysis of the cost of providing optimal routing, in terms of packet and bandwidth overhead, based on an emulation, using data from the London Circle Line metropolitan railway as a scenario. Our analysis shows that these different approaches to mobility offer significantly different performance trade-offs in routing for mobile networks, depending on the constraints of the network scenario.

AB - Wireless mobile devices are becoming increasingly prevalent in society. As a result, aggregation of network connectivity through the use of mobile networks is becoming increasingly relevant to service providers as well as for mobile users. The current approach being pursued within the IETF Mobile Extensions for IPv6 (MEXT) WG, is based on the Network Mobility (NEMO) architecture. NEMO uses IP-in-IP tunnelling for providing mobile network capability on an existing IPv6 network. This approach can result in non-optimal routing between source and destination nodes. Other proposals such as OptiNets extend NEMO and try to address issues such as sub-optimal routing. There are alternative approaches also being proposed, such as the Identifier Locator Network Protocol (ILNPv6), which is based on the use of naming, to enable a flexible and integrated mobile network capability based on IPv6. We have conducted a comparative analysis of the cost of providing optimal routing, in terms of packet and bandwidth overhead, based on an emulation, using data from the London Circle Line metropolitan railway as a scenario. Our analysis shows that these different approaches to mobility offer significantly different performance trade-offs in routing for mobile networks, depending on the constraints of the network scenario.

U2 - 10.1109/WIMOB.2010.5645029

DO - 10.1109/WIMOB.2010.5645029

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 978-1-4244-7742-5

SP - 434

EP - 441

BT - WiMob'2010

PB - IEEE

CY - NEW YORK

T2 - 6th Annual IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob)/STMWC/NASSUE/CMPA/VECON/AWSAN/AWSAN

Y2 - 11 October 2010 through 13 October 2010

ER -

A Comparative Assessment of Routing for Mobile Networks

Abstract

Conference

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this