Comparative Handover Performance Analysis of IPv6 Mobility Management Protocols 2013

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3, MARCH 2013 1077

Comparative Handover Performance Analysis ofIPv6 Mobility Management Protocols

Jong-Hyouk Lee, Member, IEEE, Jean-Marie Bonnin, Senior Member, IEEE, Ilsun You, andTai-Myoung Chung, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—IPv6 mobility management is one of the most chal-lenging research topics for enabling mobility service in the forth-coming mobile wireless ecosystems. The Internet EngineeringTask Force has been working for developing efficient IPv6 mobilitymanagement protocols. As a result, Mobile IPv6 and its extensionssuch as Fast Mobile IPv6 and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 have beendeveloped as host-based mobility management protocols. Whilethe host-based mobility management protocols were being en-hanced, the network-based mobility management protocols suchas Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and Fast Proxy Mobile IPv6(FPMIPv6) have been standardized. In this paper, we analyze andcompare existing IPv6 mobility management protocols includingthe recently standardized PMIPv6 and FPMIPv6. We identifyeach IPv6 mobility management protocol’s characteristics andperformance indicators by examining handover operations. Then,we analyze the performance of the IPv6 mobility managementprotocols in terms of handover latency, handover blocking prob-ability, and packet loss. Through the conducted numerical results,we summarize considerations for handover performance.

Index Terms—Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6), Fast Proxy MobileIPv6 (FPMIPv6), Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6), MobileIPv6 (MIPv6), Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6).

I. INTRODUCTION

MOBILE wireless ecosystems facilitate more rapid

growth of digital ecosystems for our human lives

[1]–[6]. Mobility management protocols are at the heart of the

mobile wireless ecosystems. Mobile social networking, mobile

collaboration computing, and mobile shopping shall become a

reality with a well-deployed mobility management architecture.

Various mobility management protocols for enabling mo-

bility service have been introduced. In particular, mobility

support in the network layer has been being developed by the

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Since the Mobile IPv6

(MIPv6) specification [7] was published, extensions including

Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) [8] and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6

(HMIPv6) [9] for enhancing the performance of MIPv6 have

been developed. During the time when the extensions to MIPv6

Manuscript received August 23, 2011; revised March 5, 2012; acceptedApril 18, 2012. Date of publication May 4, 2012; date of current versionOctober 16, 2012.

J.-H. Lee and J.-M. Bonnin are with the Networks, Security and Multimedia(RSM) Department, TELECOM Bretagne, 35576 Cesson-Sévigné, France(e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]).

I. You is with the School of Information Science, Korean Bible University,Seoul 139-791, Korea (e-mail: [email protected]).

T.-M. Chung is with Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea(e-mail: [email protected]).

Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available onlineat http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2012.2198035

were developed, comparative performance analysis for IPv6

mobility management protocols has been used as inputs for

developing improvements [10], [11]. For instance, comparative

performance analysis studied for MIPv6, FMIPv6, HMIPv6,

and a combination of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 has been carried

out in [12] and [13] that identify each mobility management

protocol’s characteristics and performance indicators.

While host-based mobility management protocols are de-

ployable in wireless mobile communication infrastructures,

communication service providers and standards development

organizations have recognized that such conventional solutions

for mobility service are not suitable; in particular, for telecom-

munication service, a mobile node (MN) is required to have

mobility functionalities at its network protocol stack inside,

and thus, modifications or upgrades of the MN are forced. It

obviously increases the operation expense and complexity for

the MN. The host-based mobility management protocols also

cause lack of control for operators since the MN manages its

own mobility support. Accordingly, a new approach to support

mobility service has been required and pushed by the 3rd

Generation Partnership Project to the IETF.

Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network-based mobility

management protocol that allows an MN to change its point

of attachment without any mobility signaling processed at the

MN [14]. Two types of mobility service provisioning entity are

introduced in PMIPv6: mobility access gateway (MAG) and

local mobility anchor (LMA). A MAG is a mobility service

provisioning entity which is responsible for detecting and reg-

istering the movement of the MN in its access network. As

the MAG detects the movement of the MN, it sends a proxy

binding update (BU) (PBU) message to the LMA. Note that the

LMA operates as a home agent (HA) as specified in [7] and also

involves additional functions. As it receives the PBU message

for the MN, the LMA recognizes that the MN has attached to

the MAG and creates/updates the binding cache for the MN.

The MAG receives the proxy binding acknowledgment (BAck)

(PBAck) message including the home network prefix (HNP) for

the MN and then sends the router advertisement (RA) message

including the HNP. The MN configures its address, proxy home

address (pHoA), based on the HNP included in the RA message

sent from the MAG in the access network. Because the LMA

always provisions the same HNP for a given MN during its

movements, the MN obtains the same pHoA within the PMIPv6

domain. Owing to the network-based mobility service provided

by mobility service provisioning entities, the entire PMIPv6

domain appears as a single link from the perspective of the MN

[14]. As an extension protocol to PMIPv6, Fast Proxy Mobile

0278-0046/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE

1078 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 60, NO. 3, MARCH 2013

IPv6 (FPMIPv6) [15] has been later developed to accelerate

the handover performance by reducing handover latency and

preventing packet loss.

Compared to host-based mobility management protocols

which have been evaluated over the years, the network-based

mobility management protocols such as PMIPv6 and FPMIPv6

are in the early stage for deployments. It is thus desirable to

analyze and compare the host-based mobility management pro-

tocols and the network-based mobility management protocols

together. Note that the reader is assumed to be familiar with the

details of MIPv6, FMIPv6, HMIPv6, PMIPv6, and FPMIPv6

because this paper directly goes through the analytical model-

ing and performance evaluation of those protocols.

In this paper, we report a performance evaluation analysis. In

particular, to the best of our knowledge, such numerical perfor-

mance analysis, including MIPv6, FMIPv6, HMIPv6, PMIPv6,

and FPMIPv6, is unprecedented in the literature. The analysis

conducted in this paper also provides a list of considerations for

handover performance:

1) utilizing link-layer (L2) information that helps to prepare

an MN’s handover before the MN attaches to a new

access network;

2) employing buffering management that helps to prevent

packet loss during the MN’s handover;

3) wireless link condition that largely affects the handover

performance of all mobility management protocols;

4) address configuration and preparation that count for a

large portion of handover latency of host-based mobility

management protocols;

5) network topology that affects the handover performance

of all mobility management protocols.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In

Section II, previous works for performance analysis of IPv6

mobility management protocols are reviewed. Then, as prelim-

inaries, the performance metrics, considered network model,

message information, and packet transportation delay models

are presented in Section III. In Section IV, the analytical

modeling for performance evaluation is presented. The com-

prehensive numerical analysis and discussions are presented in

Section V. Finally, conclusions are given in Section VI.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

In this section, we present some of previous studies for

performance analysis of IPv6 mobility management protocols.

In [12], the authors have carried out a performance compar-

ison among MIPv6, FMIPv6, HMIPv6, and a combination of

FMIPv6 and HMIPv6. Simulation using the network simulator

ns-2 has been performed to analyze signaling costs associ-

ated to the different IPv6 mobility management protocols.

The authors showed that the protocol combining of FMIPv6

and HMIPv6 outperforms the other protocols in most cases.

However, the combination of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 resulted

in a worse performance than MIPv6 when a user packet rate

is low.

In [13], the authors have developed an analytical framework

for performance analysis of IPv6 mobility management proto-

cols. MIPv6, FMIPv6, HMIPv6, and a combination of FMIPv6

and HMIPv6 have been compared and evaluated in terms of sig-

naling cost, binding refresh cost, packet delivery cost, required

buffer space, and handover latency. In the paper, the authors

presented the effect of subnet residence time, packet arrival

rate, and wireless link delay to the different IPv6 mobility

management protocols.

Simple handover performance analysis has been presented

in [16]. In the paper, the authors showed that PMIPv6 out-

performs other IPv6 mobility management protocols owing to

its simple handover procedure. In [17], HMIPv6 and PMIPv6

are compared and analyzed in terms of location update, packet

delivery, and wireless power consumption costs. Then, in [18],

four different route optimization (RO) schemes for PMIPv6

are presented and analyzed. In the paper, the authors have

showed that the router optimization schemes solve the ineffec-

tive routing path problem and argued that the scalability of the

PMIPv6 architecture is improved owing to distributed routing

paths in the router optimization schemes. In [19], an analytical

cost model has been developed for evaluating the performance

of IPv6 mobility management protocols. The IPv6 mobility

management protocols such as MIPv6, FMIPv6, HMIPv6, and

PMIPv6 are analyzed and compared in terms of signaling cost,

packet delivery cost, tunneling cost, and total cost.

However, the previous performance analysis studies [12],

[13] considered only the host-based mobility management pro-

tocols. In [16] and [19], PMIPv6 has been compared with the

host-based mobility management protocols, but the recently

developed FPMIPv6 protocol [15] has not been considered.

Moreover, the cost analysis studies performed in [13] and

[17]–[19] do not help to understand the handover performance

of IPv6 mobility management protocols.

In this paper, we develop a uniform framework for conduct-

ing analytic modeling across the spectrum of IPv6 mobility

management protocols. The host-based mobility manage-

ment protocols such as MIPv6, FMIPv6, and HMIPv6 and

the network-based mobility management protocols such as

PMIPv6 and FPMIPv6 are analyzed and compared in terms

of handover latency, handover blocking probability, and

packet loss.

III. PRELIMINARIES

A. Performance Metrics

The following performance metrics are used.

1) Handover latency: It is the time interval during which an

MN cannot send or receive any packets while it performs

its handover between different access networks.

2) Handover blocking probability: It is the probability which

an MN cannot complete its handover when the network

residence time is less than the handover latency.

3) Packet loss: It is the sum of all lost packets destined for

an MN during the MN’s handover.

B. Considered Network Model

The considered network model is depicted in Fig. 1 show-

ing a generic network topology wherein all communication

entities are displayed. Suppose that the MN changes its point

LEE et al.: COMPARATIVE HANDOVER PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF IPv6 MOBILITY MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS 1079

Fig. 1. Considered network model.

of attachments in a given domain composed of several access

routers (ARs). That is, the movement of the MN is limited

in the domain where the gate located at the top level of the

domain acts as an edge router connected to the Internet. Under

the assumption, the gate can be treated as the mobility anchor

point (MAP) for HMIPv6 or the LMA for PMIPv6. Similarly,

the MAG can be located at the AR when PMIPv6 is considered

in the network model shown in Fig. 1.

In Fig. 1, the following hop count parameters are defined for

describing particular paths between communication entities.

1) hC−H : It is the average number of hops

between the correspondent node (CN) and the HA.

2) hC−G: It is the average number of hops between the CN

and the gate.

3) hH−G: It is the average number of hops between the HA

and the gate.

4) hG−A: It is the average number of hops between the gate

and the AR.

5) hA−A: It is the average number of hops between the

neighbor ARs.

6) hA−M : It is the average number of hops between the

AR and the MN. Since hA−M is the wireless link, it is

assumed to be one.

According to the considered network model, data/control

packets being exchanged between the MN and the HA/CN

must be routed through the gate. For instance, when RO in

MIPv6 is enabled, data packets sent from the CN to the MN

travel through hC−G + hG−A + hA−M , where hA−M is the

wireless link established between the MN and the serving AR.

In addition, hA−A can be rewritten as√hG−A [20], [21].

C. Messages Related to Mobility Support

Various messages related to mobility support are used in IPv6

mobility management protocols. The following message sizes

in bytes are considered in our analytical modeling [22], [18].

1) LRS: It is the size of the router solicitation (RS) message,

which is 52.

2) LRA: It is the size of the RA message, which is 80.

3) LBU−HA: It is the size of the BU message sent from the

MN to the HA, which is 56.

4) LBAck−HA: It is the size of the BAck message, which

is 56.

5) LBU−CN: It is the size of the BU message sent from the

MN to the CN, which is 66.

6) LLBU−MAP: It is the size of the local BU (LBU) message

sent from the MN to the MAP, which is 56.

7) LLBAck−MAP: It is the size of the local BAck (LBAck)

message, which is 56.

8) LPBU−LMA: It is the size of the PBU message sent from

the MAG to the LMA, which is 76.

9) LPBAck−LMA: It is the size of the PBAck message, which

is 76.

10) LHoTI: It is the size of the home test (HoT) init (HoTI)


11) LCoTI: It is the size of the care-of test (CoT) init (CoTI)


12) LHoT: It is the size of the HoT message, which is 74.

13) LCoT: It is the size of the CoT message, which is 74.

14) LFBU: It is the size of the fast BU (FBU) message, which

is 56.

15) LFBAck: It is the size of the fast BAck (FBAck) message,

which is 56.

16) LUNA: It is the size of the unsolicited neighbor advertise-

ment (NA) (UNA) message, which is 52.

17) LRtSolPr: It is the size of the RS for proxy advertisement

(RtSolPr) message, which is 52.

18) LPrRtAdv: It is the size of the proxy RA (PrRtAdv)


19) LHI: It is the size of the handover initiate (HI) message,

which is 52.

20) LHAck: It is the size of the handover acknowledge (HAck)


21) LT : It is the size of the tunneling header, which is 40.

22) LD: It is the size of the user data packet, which is 120.

D. One-Way Packet Transportation Delay Over a

Wireless Link

Wireless links are unreliable particularly compared to wired

links. An MN is attached to its AR through a wireless link,

and data/control packets for the MN are transmitted over the

wireless link. Accordingly, the packet transportation delay over

the wireless link is a critical performance factor. The reported

results in [23]–[25] are used here. Suppose that τ and ρf denote

the interframe time and the frame error rate (FER) over the

wireless link, respectively. Let pi,j be the probability that the

first frame sent from the MN arrived at the AR successfully,

being the ith retransmitted frame at the jth retransmission trial.

Then, the one-way frame transportation delay dframe between

the MN and the AR through the wireless link is expressed as

follows [23]–[25]:

dframe = Dwl(1− ρf ) +

n∑

i=1

i∑

j=1

pi,j (2i×Dwl + 2(j − 1)τ)

(1)


Fig. 2. Timing diagram for MIPv6 handover.

where i ≤ n, j ≤ i, and Dwl is the wireless link delay mainly

depending on which L2 technology is being used. In addition,

n is the maximum number of retransmission trials. Then, pi,jin (1) is expressed as follows [23]–[25]:

pi,j = ρf (1− ρf )2 ((2− ρf )ρf )

((i2−i)/2)+j−1) . (2)

Suppose that k denotes the number of frames per packet over

the wireless link. Then, k is expressed as follows:

k =

⌈

Lp

Lf

⌉

(3)

where Lp and Lf are the packet size and the frame size,

respectively. Thus, by combining (1)–(3), the one-way packet

transportation delay over the wireless link dwl(Lp) is obtained

as follows:

dwl(Lp) = dframe + (k − 1)τ. (4)

E. One-Way Packet Transportation Delay Over a Wired Link

Wired links are reliable compared to wireless links. Assum-

ing that packets sent over wired links will not be lost and will

reach the destination without retransmission trials, the one-

way packet transportation delay over the wired link dwd(Lp)is simply obtained as follows:

dwd(Lp) =Lp

BWwired+Dwired (5)

where BWwired and Dwired are the bandwidth and the latency

of wired links, respectively. Then, by considering the number

of hops between the two end nodes, the one-way packet trans-

portation delay over a number of wired links dwd(Lp, h) is

obtained as follows [26]:

dwd(Lp, h) =Lp × h

BWwired+Dwired (6)

where h is the number of hops from the source node to the

destination node.

IV. ANALYTICAL MODELING OF IPv6 MOBILITY

MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS

In this section, formulas are derived for analyzing the perfor-

mance metrics based on the handover timing diagrams.

A. Handover Latency of MIPv6

Fig. 2 shows the timing diagram for MIPv6 handover. The

actual handover of an MN is started when the MN loses

connectivity. Then, the MN attaches to an access network as

its link goes up and performs the movement detection process

by sending the RS message in order to receive the RA message

quickly. The MN configures its new care-of address (CoA)

based on the network prefix information included in the RA

message, and it performs the duplicate address detection (DAD)

process. Note that the stateless address autoconfiguration is

assumed here. In the case that the CoA is valid to be used in the

new network, the MN registers its new location information by

sending BU messages to its HA and CN. For the CN, the HoTI

and CoTI messages are sent to start the return routability (RR)

process.1 The HoTI message is first tunneled to the HA, and

then, it is forwarded to the CN. Receiving the BAck message

sent from the HA, it indicates that the location update to the

HA is completed, whereas the actual location update to the CN

is started by sending the BU message to the CN after receiving

the valid HoT and CoT messages. When the CN receives the

BU message sent from the MN, it starts to send data packets

directly to the MN. Note that the CN does not need to send the

BAck message back to the MN [7].

Suppose that L(MIPv6)HO is the handover latency of MIPv6.

Then, it is expressed as follows:

L(MIPv6)HO = TL2 + TMD + TDAD + TR (7)

where TL2 is the L2 handover latency, TMD is the movement

detection latency, TDAD is the DAD latency, and TR is the

registration latency. TL2 depends on which L2 technology and

manufacture chipset are being used. The movement detection

process is completed as the MN receives the solicited RA

message from the AR in the new access network. Accordingly,

if the movement detection process is immediately started with

the linkup signaling, TMD can be rewritten as

TMD = dwl(LRS) + dwl(LRA). (8)

In Fig. 2, TH−M presents the location update time for

the HA. Suppose that hH−A is the average number of hops

1As described in [17, Sec. 11.6.1], in some cases, the RR process maybe completed with only one message pair exchange or even be completedwithout any message exchange. However, in this paper, we assume that theMN performs its RR process for each handover.


Fig. 3. Timing diagram for predictive FMIPv6 handover.

Fig. 4. Timing diagram for reactive FMIPv6 handover.

between the HA and the AR serving the MN. Then, TH−M is

expressed as

TH−M = dwl(LBU−HA) + dwd(LBU−HA, hH−A)

+ dwl(LBAck−HA) + dwd(LBAck−HA, hH−A). (9)

The DAD process is successfully completed if a defending

NA message for the generated CoA is not arrived in Re-

transTimer [27]. Accordingly, TDAD can be rewritten as the

value of RetransTimer defined in [28]. When RO in MIPv6

is enabled, the RR process must be performed, so TR can be

rewritten as

TR = max{Tα, Tβ}+ TC−M (10)

where Tα is the required time to exchange the HoTI and HoT

messages via the HA and Tβ is the required time to exchange

the CoTI and CoT messages directly with the CN. Suppose that

hC−A is the average number of hops between the CN and the

AR serving the MN, i.e., hC−A = hC−G + hG−A. Then, Tα

and Tβ can be expressed as

Tα = dwl(LHoTI) + dwd(LHoTI, hH−A + hC−H)

+ dwl(LHoT) + dwd(LHoT, hH−A + hC−H) (11)

Tβ = dwl(LCoTI) + dwd(LCoTI, hC−A)

+ dwl(LCoT) + dwd(LCoT, hC−A). (12)

In (10), TC−M is the time required to send the BU message

to the CN and receive the first data packet sent from the CN.

Note that the CN’s BAck message is not required as presented

in [7]. Then, TC−M is expressed as

TC−M = dwl(LBU−CN) + dwd(LBU−CN, hC−A)

+ dwl(LD) + dwd(LD, hC−A). (13)

B. Handover Latency of FMIPv6

FMIPv6 operates in either the predictive mode or the reactive

mode, depending on the circumstances [10].

Fig. 3 shows the timing diagram for predictive FMIPv6

handover. By utilizing the L2 trigger, an MN anticipates its

movement to reduce its handover latency and also prevent

packet loss. Predictive FMIPv6 is performed when the MN suc-

cessfully receives the FBAck message sent from the previous

AR (pAR) before it moves to the new AR (nAR). As shown

in Fig. 3, the MN prepares its handover at the previous access

network. For instance, the MN actively obtains the new CoA

(NCoA) which will be used in the new access network, whereas

the relevant ARs exchange required information for serving the

MN. Then, as the MN attaches to the new access network, it

immediately sends the UNA message with the NCoA already

generated while being attached at the previous access network.

Thus, the handover latency in predictive FMIPv6 is signifi-

cantly reduced compared to that of MIPv6.

Suppose that L(Pre-FMIPv6)HO is the handover latency of pre-

dictive FMIPv6. Then, it is expressed as follows:

L(Pre-FMIPv6)HO = TL2 + TPRE (14)

where TPRE represents the time at which the nAR receives the

UNA message sent from the MN and the time at which the MN

receives the first data packet sent from the nAR. Note that the

data packets sent to the MN are the buffered data packets that

the pAR has forwarded. Then, TPRE is expressed as follows:

TPRE = dwl(LUNA) + dwl(LD). (15)

Fig. 4 shows the timing diagram for reactive FMIPv6 hand-

over. Even if an MN can anticipate its movement by utilizing

the L2 trigger, sometime, the MN cannot complete its handover

preparing at the previous access network. That is, reactive

FMIPv6 handover is performed when the MN cannot receive

the FBAck message sent from the pAR [10].


Fig. 5. Timing diagram for HMIPv6 handover.

Fig. 6. Timing diagram for PMIPv6 handover.

Suppose that L(Re-FMIPv6)HO is the handover latency of reac-

tive FMIPv6. Then, it is expressed as follows:

L(Re-FMIPv6)HO = TL2 + TDAD + TRE (16)

where TDAD is included due to the lack of handover preparing

at the previous access network. Similarly, TRE is included for

representing the times to send the FBU message, exchange

required information between the relevant ARs, and receive the

first data packet sent from the nAR. TRE is expressed as

TRE = dwl(LFBU) + dwd(LFBU, hA−A)

+ dwd(LHI, hA−A) + dbuff-packet (17)

where dbuff-packet is the time which the first data packet

buffered at the pAR arrives at the MN via the nAR. The buffered

data packets at the pAR are immediately sent to the nAR with

the FBAck message. Accordingly, dbuff-packet is expressed as

dbuff-packet = dwd(LD + LT , hA−A) + dwl(LD) (18)

where LT is considered because the pAR tunnels data packets

destined for the MN to the nAR.

C. Handover Latency of HMIPv6

Fig. 5 shows the timing diagram for HMIPv6 handover.

HMIPv6 manages the movement of an MN in a localized

manner. In the diagram, the movements of the MN are assumed

as intradomain handovers. That is, the MN changes its point of

attachment within a MAP domain. In HMIPv6, L2 information

is not utilized to anticipate the movement of the MN so that

the handover process of HMIPv6 is similar to that of MIPv6.

The MN only registers its new location information by sending

the LBU message with the LCoA to its MAP. The actions for

registering new location information to both of the HA and

CN are not required in HMIPv6. This is because the MN’s

movement within the MAP domain is transparent to the outside

of the MAP domain [11], [16].

Suppose that L(HMIPv6)HO is the handover latency of HMIPv6.


L(HMIPv6)HO = TL2 + TMD + TDAD + TMAP (19)

where TMD and TDAD are included. This is because HMIPv6

does not utilize L2 information to improve handover speed and

the LCoA is required to be generated as the MN receives the

RA message at the new access network. Then, TMAP represents

the required time to send the LBU message, receive the LBAck

message, and also receive the data packet sent from the MAP.

Then, TMAP is expressed as follows:

TMAP = dwl(LBU−MAP) + dwd(LBU−MAP, hG−A)

+ dmap-packet (20)

where dmap-packet is the time which the first data packet sent

from the MAP arrives at the MN. The MAP immediately sends

data packets destined for the MN with the LBAck message.

Accordingly, dmap-packet is expressed as

dmap-packet = dwl(LD + LT ) + dwd(LD + LT , hG−A) (21)

where LT is taken into account because the data packets sent

from the MAP to the MN are tunneled.

D. Handover Latency of PMIPv6

Fig. 6 shows the timing diagram for PMIPv6 handover.

Similar to HMIPv6, PMIPv6 manages the movement of an

MN in a localized manner as well, but mobility service for

the MN is supported by mobility service provisioning entities

[17], [18]. As the MN attaches to the new access network, its

movement is detected and registered by the MAG at the new

access network. Then, the MN obtains the same HNP included

in the RA message sent from the MAG at the new access

network so that the address configuration and DAD process are

not required when the MN performs its handover in a PMIPv6

domain [16].


Fig. 7. Timing diagram for predictive FPMIPv6 handover.

Fig. 8. Timing diagram for reactive FPMIPv6 handover.

Suppose that L(PMIPv6)HO is the handover latency of PMIPv6.


L(PMIPv6)HO = TL2 + TLMA (22)

where TLMA involves the required time to send the RS message,

exchange PBU/PBAck messages between the MAG and the

LMA, and receive the first data packet sent from the LMA. In

this paper, we assume that the MAG detects the movement of

the MN when the MAG receives the RS message sent from the

MN. Then, TLMA is expressed as follows:

TLMA = dwl(LRS) + dwd(LPBU, hG−A) + dlma-packet (23)

where dlma-packet is the time which the first data packet sent

from the LMA arrives at the MN. A bidirectional tunnel

between the LMA and the MAG can be implemented as a

static tunneling between them that requires no additional tun-

neling establishment latency. Here, such a static tunneling is

considered for PMIPv6. As the LMA receives the valid PBU

message sent from the MAG, it sends data packets destined for

the MN with the PBAck message. Accordingly, dlma-packet is

expressed as

dlma-packet = dwl(LD) + dwd(LD + LT , hG−A) (24)

where LT is only taken into account at dwd(Lp, h). This is be-

cause the data packets for the MN are only tunneled between the

LMA and the MAG. Notice that this is a difference compared to

that of HMIPv6. Even if both of PMIPv6 and HMIPv6 similarly

manage the MN in a localized manner, PMIPv6 further reduces

the packet transportation overhead over the wireless link [17].

E. Handover Latency of FPMIPv6

Similar to FMIPv6, FPMIPv6 consists of predictive and

reactive modes.

Fig. 7 shows the timing diagram for predictive FPMIPv6 han-

dover. While an MN is attached to a previous MAG (pMAG),

it reports an imminent handover event to the pMAG. Pre-

dictive FPMIPv6 is performed when the pMAG successfully

exchanges the required information of the MN with a new MAG

(nMAG) via the HI and HAck messages before the MN attaches

to the nMAG. After a successful HI/HAck message exchange,

the bidirectional tunnel between the pMAG and nMAG is

established. The pMAG uses this tunnel to forward data packets

destined for the MN to the nMAG. When the MN changes its

point of attachment to the nMAG, the forwarded data packets

will be directly sent to the MN from the nMAG.

Suppose that L(Pre-FPMIPv6)HO is the handover latency of

predictive FPMIPv6. Then, it is expressed as follows:

L(Pre-FPMIPv6)HO = TL2 + TPRE-P (25)

where TPRE-P is composed of the sum of the IP-layer con-

nection setup delay Dπ and the first data packet arrival delay

from the nMAG to the MN dmag-packet. Accordingly, TPRE-Pis expressed as follows:

TPRE-P = Dπ + dmag-packet (26)

where Dπ is assumed to be the same delay as dwl(LUNA) in

this paper and dmag-packet = dwl(LD).Fig. 8 shows the timing diagram for reactive FPMIPv6 han-

dover. Similar to reactive FMIPv6 handover, it is executed when

an MN changes its point of attachment to an nMAG before the

fast handover preparation between the pMAG and the nMAG

is completed. In other words, reactive FPMIPv6 is performed

when the MN attaches to the nMAG before the bidirectional

tunnel between the pMAG and the nMAG is established.

Suppose that L(Re-FPMIPv6)HO is the handover latency of reac-

tive FPMIPv6. Then, it is expressed as follows:

L(Re-FPMIPv6)HO = TL2 + TRE-P (27)

where TRE-P is included for representing the times to setup

the IP-layer connection, exchange the required information

between the relevant MAGs, and receive the first data packet

sent from the nMAG. Note that the data packet is tunneled


from the pMAG to the nMAG and then sent to the MN. That

is, TRE-P is expressed as follows:

TRE-P =Dπ + dwd(LHI, hA−A) + dwd(LHAck, hA−A)

+ dbuff-packet. (28)

F. Handover Blocking Probability

In order to analyze the handover failure for each mobility

management protocol, the handover blocking probability pre-

sented in [25], [29], and [30] is used here. The handover for

an MN can fail for several reasons such as unacceptably high

handover latency, signal-to-noise deterioration, and unavailable

wireless channel resource. For instance, if the residence time

that the MN stays in the network is less than the handover

completion time, the handover for the MN is failed due to the

loss of the link information or the wireless channel.

Suppose that L(·)HO denotes the handover latency for a specific

mobility management protocol developed in the previous sec-

tions. Note that · is used as a protocol indicator. Let E[L(·)HO] be

the mean value of L(·)HO. Suppose that TR is the residence time

in the network with its probability density function fR(t). For

the sake of simplicity, L(·)HO is also assumed to be exponentially

distributed with the cumulative function F(·)T (t). Then, assum-

ing that L(·)HO is the only handover blocking factor, the handover

blocking probability ρb is expressed as follows:

ρb =Pr(

L(·)HO > TR

)

=

∞∫

0

(

1− F(·)T (u)

)

fR(u)du

=µcE

[

L(·)HO

]

1 + µcE[

L(·)HO

] (29)

where µc is the border crossing rate for the MN. Assuming

that the AR’s coverage area is circular, then, µc is calculated

as follows [13], [18], [20]:

µc =2ν

πR(30)

where ν is the average velocity of the MN and R is the radius

of the AR’s coverage area.

G. Packet Loss

While an MN experiences its handover, data packets destined

for the MN will be lost if any buffer management at network

sides does not exist. The amount of packet loss ϕ(·)p during a

handover is defined as the sum of all lost data packets sent from

a CN of the MN. Then, it is expressed as follows:

ϕ(·)p = λsE(S)L

(·)HO (31)

where λs is the average session arrival rate at the MN’s wireless

interface and E(S) is the average session length in packets. As

presented in (31), ϕ(·)p is directly proportionate to L

(·)HO. For fast

handover protocols such as FMIPv6 and FPMIPv6, the packet

Fig. 9. Handover latency versus ρf with Dwl = 10 ms.

loss will not occur owing to packet buffering facilities, but only

delayed packet transportation will occur [13].

V. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this section, the performance evaluation results of the

mobility management protocols are presented. For the numer-

ical analysis, the following system parameter values are used

[25]–[27], [31]: hC−H = 4, hC−G = 6, hH−G = 4, hG−A =4, hA−M = 1, E(S) = 10, τ = 20 ms, n = 3, Lf = 19 B,

Dwl = [10, 40] ms, Dwired = 0.5 ms, BWwired = 100 Mbps,

TL2 = 45.35 ms, and TDAD = 1000 ms.

A. Handover Latency

Let ρf vary from 0 to 0.7 with a step value of 0.05. Figs. 9 and

10 show the handover latency against ρf . A higher value of ρfincreases the probability of the erroneous packet transmission

over the wireless link. Accordingly, the number of mobility sig-

naling retransmissions is increased, which results in increased

handover latency. In other words, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10,

the handover latency for each mobility management protocol is

relative to ρf . The value of Dwl also contributes to the handover

latency. For instance, the handover latency is dramatically

increased as the value of ρf is increased with a higher value

of Dwl. Predictive FMIPv6 and FPMIPv6 outperform the other

mobility management protocols in terms of handover latency

in this analysis. This is because an MN in those predictive

fast handover protocols utilizes the L2 trigger and prepares

its handover at the previous (current) access network before it

actually moves to the new access network. However, reactive

fast handover protocols cannot significantly reduce the han-

dover latency because an MN in those protocols must perform

some actions at the new access network. Accordingly, from

these results, it is confirmed that the reactive fast handover

protocols such as reactive FMIPv6 and FPMIPv6 can be used to

prevent packet loss but not to significantly reduce the handover

latency. Then, PMIPv6 is placed second in this analysis. An

MN in PMIPv6 is locally managed, and mobility signaling is


Fig. 10. Handover latency versus ρf with Dwl = 40 ms.

Fig. 11. Handover blocking probability versus ρf .

exchanged by the LMA and the MAG. It means that mobility

signaling over the wireless link is not performed so that the

effects of ρf and Dwl are minimized in the performance of

PMIPv6.

B. Handover Blocking Probability

Here, ν and R are set as 20 m/s and 500 m, respectively.

Then, Dwl is fixed at 10 ms, while ρf is varied from 0 to 0.7

with a step value of 0.05. Fig. 11 shows the handover blocking

probability for each mobility management protocol. Recall that

the conducted analysis for handover blocking probability only

considers the handover latency as a blocking factor. Similar to

the results shown in Figs. 9 and 10, the handover blocking prob-

ability is increased as the value of ρf is increased. The handover

blocking probabilities of predictive FMIPv6 and FPMIPv6

are lower than the others as well, but the handover blocking

probability of MIPv6 is higher than the others. PMIPv6 again

places second in this analysis. Now, ρf and R are set as 0.2

Fig. 12. Handover blocking probability versus ν.

and 500 m, respectively. Then, ν is varied from 0 to 30 m/s.

Fig. 12 shows the handover blocking probability against ν. As ν

is increasing, the MN quickly changes its point of attachments.

It means that the MN with a high value of ν is required to

complete its handover in a shorter time than the MN with a

low value of ν. Accordingly, as the value of ν is increased, the

handover blocking probability for each mobility management

protocol is also increased. In the given analysis environment,

only two predictive fast handover protocols such as predictive

FMIPv6 and FPMIPv6 provide good performance in terms

of the handover blocking probability that is less than 0.05

even if ν is increased until 30 m/s. Note that PMIPv6 also

shows a considerable performance, i.e., the handover blocking

probability is less than 0.1 when ν reached to 30 m/s. Similar

to the previous results, MIPv6 calls forth poor performance in

terms of the handover blocking probability. This phenomenon

gets larger as the value of ν is increased. Next, ν and ρf are

set as 20 m/s and 0.2, respectively. Then, Dwl is fixed at 10 ms,

while R is varied from 400 to 800 m with a step value of 50 m.

The high value of R means that the size of the access network

for the MN is bigger than the low value of R. As R is increased,

the residence time, which the MN stays in the access network,

is increased so that the MN has more time to complete its

handover while reducing the handover blocking probability. As

shown in Fig. 13, most of the mobility management protocols

are under the influence of R, but R cannot have influence upon

the performance of predictive FMIPv6 and FPMIPv6.

Throughout the results shown in Figs. 11–13, it is confirmed

that the handover latency of predictive FMIPv6 and FPMIPv6

is short enough to avoid the handover blocking issues caused

by ρf , ν, and R. The reason why those predictive fast handover

protocols achieve such superior performance compared with the

others is that those protocols allow the MN prepare its handover

at the previous access network before the MN performs the

actual handover to the new access network by utilizing the L2

information. Regarding the performance of PMIPv6, PMIPv6

avoids that mobility signaling, i.e., PBU and PBAck messages,

flies on the wireless link so that the value of ρf is not the influ-

ence on the performance of PMIPv6. In addition, in PMIPv6,


Fig. 13. Handover blocking probability versus R.

Fig. 14. Packet loss versus ρf with Dwl = 10 ms.

mobility signaling is only exchanged between the MAG and

the LMA over the wired link. Similar to that of MIPv6, the

handover performance of PMIPv6 has been improved as fast

handover techniques were applied, i.e., FPMIPv6.

C. Packet Loss

Without any buffering mechanism, data packets sent from the

CN to the MN will be lost while the MN performs its handover.

Figs. 14 and 15 show the packet loss during a handover. Here,

λs and E(S) are set as one and ten, respectively. Then, ρf is

varied from 0 to 0.7 with different values of Dwl. In Fig. 14,

Dwl is set as 10 ms, whereas Dwl is set as 40 ms in Fig. 15.

According to the results shown in Figs. 14 and 15, it can be

seen that ρf with the higher value of Dwl has more impact

on the packet loss. The packet loss during the handover is

directly proportional to the handover latency as analyzed in the

previous section. For instance, MIPv6 causes a number of lost

packets compared to the others because it requires more time

to complete its handover than the others. Another interesting

Fig. 15. Packet loss versus ρf with Dwl = 40 ms.

observation is that fast handover protocols such as FMIPv6 and

FPMIPv6 provide no packet loss during the handover. This is

because such mobility management protocols adopt the packet

buffering mechanism at ARs/MAGs. For instance, in predictive

FMIPv6, data packets destined for the MN are first forwarded

to the nAR, and then, the nAR buffers the data packets until

the MN arrives at the access network managed by the nAR.

As the MN arrives, the nAR forwards the buffered data packets

to the MN. Similarly, data packets sent from the CN to the MN

are buffered at the pAR in reactive FMIPv6. Then, when the

pAR receives the FBU message indicating that the MN has been

attached to the nAR, the buffered data packets are forwarded to

the nAR. PMIPv6 also yields packet loss even if its handover

latency is quite low. This is because PMIPv6 does not provide

any buffering mechanism to prevent packet loss when the MN

performs its handover.

VI. CONCLUSION

In this paper, the existing IPv6 mobility management proto-

cols developed by the IETF have been analyzed and compared

in terms of handover latency, handover blocking probability,

and packet loss. From the conducted analysis results, the fol-

lowing are confirmed.

1) Utilizing L2 information: In order to improve the han-

dover performance, L2 information should be utilized.

As shown in Fig. 10, predictive FMIPv6 and FPMIPv6

outperform the other mobility management protocols be-

cause those protocols allow an MN to prepare its han-

dover before the MN performs its actual handover to the

new access network. The reduced handover latency also

results in the reduced handover blocking probability as

shown in Figs. 11–13.

2) Employing buffering management: In order to prevent

packet loss during the handover, any buffering mecha-

nism should be employed. As shown in Figs. 14 and

15, only fast handover protocols such as FMIPv6 and

FPMIPv6 prevent the loss of data packets sent from

the CN.


3) Wireless link condition: As shown in Figs. 9–11, 14,

and 15, the wireless link condition, i.e., FER over the

wireless link, largely affects the handover performance

of all mobility management protocols. With this point in

view, the network-based mobility management protocols

such as PMIPv6 and FPMIPv6 have an advantage owing

to removed mobility signaling from the MN.

4) DAD latency: As shown in Figs. 10, 14, and 15, MIPv6

and HMIPv6 show poor handover performance. This

phenomenon is caused by the DAD process, which counts

for a large portion of handover latency. Since the DAD

process is performed over a wireless link, in a poor

wireless link condition, it badly influences the handover

performance of MIPv6 and HMIPv6. As a considerable

solution for this, the optimistic DAD [32] is recom-

mended that eliminates the DAD completion time.

5) Network topology: As mobility signaling, i.e., BU/BAck,

LBU/LBAck, PBU/PBAck, HI/HAck, etc., is sent along

the network topology, the handover performance is

affected by the network topology configuration. For

instance, the handover performance of fast handover pro-

tocols such as FMIPv6 and FPMIPv6 is largely affected

by the number of hops between the relevant ARs/MAGs.

The conducted analysis results in this paper can be used

to identify each mobility management protocol’s characteris-

tics and performance indicators. They could also be used to

facilitate decision making in development for a new mobility

management protocol. For instance, the IETF has recently

opened the distributed mobility management (DMM) working

group aiming at distributing mobile Internet traffic in an optimal

way while not relying on centrally deployed mobility anchors

such as HA, MAP, and LMA. As the DMM approach is in

an early stage of standardization, proposals are required to be

carefully analyzed and evaluated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper is an extension of the first author’s Ph.D. disserta-

tion [33]. The companion paper, which was also part of the first

author’s Ph.D. dissertation, presents an analytical cost model

for evaluating the performance of IPv6 mobility management

protocols [19].

REFERENCES

[1] L. Barolli and F. Xhafa, “JXTA-OVERLAY: A P2P platform for dis-tributed, collaborative and ubiquitous computing,” IEEE Trans. Ind.Electron., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 2163–2172, Jun. 2011.

[2] A. B. Waluyo, W. Rahayu, D. Taniar, and B. Srinivasan, “A novel structureand access mechanism for mobile broadcast data in digital ecosystems,”IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 2173–2182, Jun. 2011.

[3] J. Arnedo-Moreno, K. Matsuo, L. Barolli, and F. Xhafa, “Secure commu-nication setup for a P2P based JXTA-Overlay platform,” IEEE Trans. Ind.Electron., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 2086–2096, Jun. 2011.

[4] L. Han, J. Wang, X. Wang, and C. Wang, “Bypass flow-splitting for-warding in FISH networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 6,pp. 2197–2204, Jun. 2011.

[5] Z. An, H. Zhu, X. Li, C. Xu, Y. Xu, and X. Li, “Nonidentical linearpulse-coupled oscillators model with application to time synchronizationin wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 6,pp. 2205–2215, Jun. 2011.

[6] B.-S. Choi, J.-W. Lee, J.-J. Lee, and K.-T. Park, “A hierarchical algorithmfor indoor mobile robots localization using RFID sensor fusion,” IEEETrans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 2226–2235, Jun. 2011.

[7] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, “Mobility Support in IPv6,” InternetSoc., Reston, VA, IETF RFC 3775, Jun. 2004.

[8] R. Koodli, “Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6,” Internet Soc., Reston, VA,IETF RFC 4068, Jul. 2005.

[9] H. Soliman, C. Castelluccia, K. ElMalki, and L. Bellier, “HierarchicalMobile IPv6 Mobility Management (HMIPv6),” Internet Soc., Reston,VA, IETF RFC 4140, Aug. 2005.

[10] R. Koodli, “Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers,” Internet Soc., Reston, VA,IETF RFC 5568, Jul. 2009.

[11] H. Soliman, C. Castelluccia, K. ElMalki, and L. Bellier, “HierarchicalMobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility Management,” Internet Soc., Reston,VA, IETF RFC 5380, Oct. 2008.

[12] X. Perez-Costa, M. Torrent-Moreno, and H. Hartenstein, “A performancecomparison of Mobile IPv6, Hierarchical Mobile IPv6, fast handovers forMobile IPv6 and their combination,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput.Commun. Rev., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 5–19, Oct. 2004.

[13] C. Makaya and S. Pierre, “An analytical framework for performanceevaluation of IPv6-based mobility management protocols,” IEEE Trans.Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 972–983, Mar. 2008.

[14] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Devarapalli, K. Chowdhury, and B. Patil,“Proxy Mobile IPv6,” Internet Soc., Reston, VA, IETF RFC 5213,Aug. 2008.

[15] H. Yokota, K. Chowdhury, R. Koodli, B. Patil, and F. Xia, “Fast Han-dovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6,” Internet Soc., Reston, VA, IETF RFC5949, Sep. 2010.

[16] K.-S. Kong, W. Lee, Y.-H. Han, and M.-K. Shin, “Handover latencyanalysis of a network-based localized mobility management protocol,” inProc. IEEE ICC, May 2008, pp. 5838–5843.

[17] J.-H. Lee, Y.-H. Han, S. Gundavelli, and T.-M. Chung, “A comparativeperformance analysis on Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 and Proxy MobileIPv6,” Telecommun. Syst., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 279–292, Aug. 2009.

[18] J.-H. Lee and T.-M. Chung, “How much do we gain by introducingroute optimization in Proxy Mobile IPv6 networks?” Ann. Telecommun.,vol. 65, no. 5/6, pp. 233–246, Jun. 2010.

[19] J.-H. Lee, T. Ernst, and T.-M. Chung, “Cost analysis of IP mobility man-agement protocols for consumer mobile devices,” IEEE Trans. Consum.Electron., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 1010–1017, May 2010.

[20] X. Zhang, J. Castellanos, and A. Campbell, “P-MIP: Paging extensionsfor mobile IP,” ACM Mobile Netw. Appl., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 127–141,Mar. 2002.

[21] J.-H. Lee, S. Pack, I. You, and T.-M. Chung, “Enabling a pagingmechanism in network-based localized mobility management networks,”J. Internet Technol., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 463–472, Oct. 2009.

[22] H. Fathi, S. S. Chakraborty, and R. Prasad, “Optimization of MobileIPv6-based handovers to support VoIP services in wireless heteroge-neous networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 260–270,Jan. 2007.

[23] G. Bao, “Performance evaluation of TCP/RLP protocol stack over CDMAwireless link,” Wireless Netw., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 229–237, Sep. 2006.

[24] N. Banerjee, K. Basu, and S. K. Das, “Hand-off delay analysis inSIP-based mobility management in wireless networks,” in Proc. IPDPS,Nice, France, Apr. 2003.

[25] S. Yang, H. Zhou, Y. Qin, and H. Zhang, “SHIP: Cross-layer mobilitymanagement scheme based on session initiation protocol and host identityprotocol,” Telecommun. Syst., vol. 42, no. 1/2, pp. 5–15, Oct. 2009.

[26] N. Banerjee, W. Wu, S. K. Das, S. Dawkins, and J. Pathak, “Mobilitysupport in wireless Internet,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 5,pp. 54–61, Oct. 2003.

[27] Y.-H. Han, Min, and S.-G. Min, “Performance analysis of HierarchicalMobile IPv6: Does it improve Mobile IPv6 in terms of handover speed?”Wireless Pers. Commun., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 463–483, Mar. 2009.

[28] S. Thomson, T. Narten, and T. Jinmei, “IPv6 Stateless Address Autocon-figuration,” Internet Soc., Reston, VA, IETF RFC 4862, Sep. 2007.

[29] J. McNair, I. F. Akyildiz, and M. D. Bender, “An inter-system handofftechnique for the IMT-2000 system,” in Proc. INFOCOM, Mar. 2000,pp. 208–216.

[30] J.-H. Lee, M. Kim, B.-S. Koh, and T.-M. Chung, “Adaptive authenticationand registration key management scheme based on AAA architecture,”Intell. Autom. Soft Comput., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 519–536, 2010.

[31] S. Pack, J. Choi, T. Kwon, and Y. Choi, “Fast-handoff support in IEEE802.11 wireless networks,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 9, no. 1,pp. 2–12, 2007.

[32] N. Moore, “Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection,” Internet Soc., Re-ston, VA, IETF RFC 4429, Apr. 2006.

[33] J.-H. Lee, “Enabling network-based mobility management in next-generation all-IP networks: Analysis from the perspective of security andperformance,” Ph.D. dissertation, Sungkyunkwan Univ., Seoul, Korea,Feb. 2010.


Jong-Hyouk Lee (M’07) received the B.S. degreein information system engineering from DaejeonUniversity, Daejeon, Korea, in 2004 and the M.S. andPh.D. degrees in computer engineering under Prof.Tai-Myoung Chung from Sungkyunkwan University,Suwon, Korea, in 2007 and 2010, respectively.

He joined the IMARA team at INRIA,Rocquencourt, France, in 2009, where he workedfor the GeoNet European project, the ITSSv6European project, the MobiSeND French nationalproject, and the SCOREF French national project.

He started his academic profession at the Networks, Security and Multimedia(RSM) Department, TELECOM Bretagne, Cesson-Sévigné, France, in 2012as an Assistant Professor. He is involved in standardization activities atISO TC204 WG16, ETSI TC ITS, and the IETF. He is an Associate Editorof Wiley Security and Communication Networks. His research interestsinclude authentication, privacy, and quality of service in mobile networks;mobility management for vehicular networks; and protocol-operation-basedperformance analysis.

Dr. Lee was the recipient of two Excellent Research Awards from the Depart-ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University. He isa member of the Editorial Board of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONSUMER

ELECTRONICS.

Jean-Marie Bonnin (SM’09) received the Ph.D.degree in computer science from the University ofStrasbourg, Strasbourg, France, in 1998.

He has been with TELECOM Bretagne, Cesson-Sévigné, France, since 2001, where he is currentlythe Head of the Networks, Security and Multime-dia (RSM) Department. His main research interestslie in the convergence between IP networks andmobile telephony networks and particularly in het-erogeneous handover issues. Recently, he has beeninvolved in projects dealing with network mobility

and its application to intelligent transportation systems. He is involved inseveral collaborative research projects at the French and European levels andthrough international academic collaborations (mainly with Asia and NorthAfrica).

Ilsun You received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees incomputer science from Dankook University, Yongin,Korea, in 1997 and 2002, respectively.

He was with Thin Multimedia Inc., Internet Se-curity Company, Ltd., and Hanjo Engineering Com-pany, Ltd., as a Research Engineer from 1997 to2004. He has been an Assistant Professor with theSchool of Information Science, Korean Bible Uni-versity, Seoul, Korea, since March 2005. He is inthe Editorial Board for the International Journal

of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing, Computing

and Informatics (CAI), the Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous

Computing, and Dependable Applications (JoWUA), the International Journal

of Space-Based and Situated Computing, and the Journal of Korean Society

for Internet Information (KSII). He has served as a Guest Editor of severaljournals such as CAI, MIS, AutoSoft, CAMWA, and WCMC. His main researchinterests include Internet security, authentication, access control, Mobile IPv6,and ubiquitous computing.

Dr. You is a member of IEICE, KIISC, KSII, KIPS, and IEEK. He has servedor is currently serving on the organizing or program committees of internationalconferences and workshops.

Tai-Myoung Chung (SM’00) received the B.S. de-gree in electrical engineering from Yonsei Univer-sity, Seoul, Korea, in 1981, the B.S. degree incomputer science and the M.S. degree in computerengineering from the University of Illinois, Chicago,in 1984 and 1987, respectively, and the Ph.D. degreein computer engineering from Purdue University,West Lafayette, IN, in 1995.

He is currently a Professor with SungkyunkwanUniversity, Suwon, Korea. His research interests areinformation security, information management, and

protocols in next-generation networks.Dr. Chung is currently the Vice-Chair of the Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development Working Party on Information Security andPrivacy. He serves as a Presidential Committee member of the Koreane-government and the Chair of the Information Resource Management Com-mittee of the e-government. He is also an expert member of the PresidentialAdvisory Committee on Science and Technology of Korea and is the Chair ofthe Consortium of Computer Emergency Response Teams.

Comparative Handover Performance Analysis of IPv6 Mobility Management Protocols 2013

Documents

mobile shopping

mobility service

hierarchical mobile

fast proxy mobile ipv6fpmipv6

mobile social networking

mobile ipv6mipv6 specification

handover operations

fast proxy mobileipv6