A comparison of IP Mobility Protocols

Pierre Reinbold, Olivier Bonaventure

Research output: Other contribution

Abstract

Third generation wideband mobile networks are becoming a reality. Many operators are at the point of proposing GPRS (and soon UMTS) services to their customers. All these are actually evolving towards all-IP networks. This represents the fusion between the two famous current network technologies: the Internet and the mobile telephony/networking. IP which was designed to work with classical static networks must be enhanced to support mobility and many proposals have been made in this direction. The first is Mobile IP which is built in IPv6 but many other are willing to improve it in order to have a more efficient mobility management. This report focusses on a comparison of all these proposals in a global mobility framework. We define this framework in two steps: we first give a general description of the current (and expected) mobility landscape and we point out the major problems posed by the mobility management. These are mainly handoff management, passive connectivity, quality of service, scalability, security, ... We compare then on this base the five main IP mobility proposals: Mobile IP, Cellular IP, Hawaii, TeleMIP and EMA.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Network protocols
3G mobile communication systems
Scalability
Wireless networks
Quality of service
Fusion reactions
Internet

Keywords

  • TeleMIP
  • GPRS
  • Mobile IP
  • Wireless network
  • Hawaii
  • EMA
  • UMTS
  • Cellular IP

Cite this

Reinbold, P., & Bonaventure, O. (2001). A comparison of IP Mobility Protocols.
Reinbold, Pierre ; Bonaventure, Olivier. / A comparison of IP Mobility Protocols. 2001.
@misc{acb13367aabd4884b6320dc698cb9d01,
title = "A comparison of IP Mobility Protocols",
abstract = "Third generation wideband mobile networks are becoming a reality. Many operators are at the point of proposing GPRS (and soon UMTS) services to their customers. All these are actually evolving towards all-IP networks. This represents the fusion between the two famous current network technologies: the Internet and the mobile telephony/networking. IP which was designed to work with classical static networks must be enhanced to support mobility and many proposals have been made in this direction. The first is Mobile IP which is built in IPv6 but many other are willing to improve it in order to have a more efficient mobility management. This report focusses on a comparison of all these proposals in a global mobility framework. We define this framework in two steps: we first give a general description of the current (and expected) mobility landscape and we point out the major problems posed by the mobility management. These are mainly handoff management, passive connectivity, quality of service, scalability, security, ... We compare then on this base the five main IP mobility proposals: Mobile IP, Cellular IP, Hawaii, TeleMIP and EMA.",
keywords = "TeleMIP, GPRS, Mobile IP, Wireless network, Hawaii, EMA, UMTS, Cellular IP",
author = "Pierre Reinbold and Olivier Bonaventure",
year = "2001",
language = "English",
type = "Other",

}

Reinbold, P & Bonaventure, O 2001, A comparison of IP Mobility Protocols..

A comparison of IP Mobility Protocols. / Reinbold, Pierre; Bonaventure, Olivier.

2001, .

Research output: Other contribution

TY - GEN

T1 - A comparison of IP Mobility Protocols

AU - Reinbold, Pierre

AU - Bonaventure, Olivier

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Third generation wideband mobile networks are becoming a reality. Many operators are at the point of proposing GPRS (and soon UMTS) services to their customers. All these are actually evolving towards all-IP networks. This represents the fusion between the two famous current network technologies: the Internet and the mobile telephony/networking. IP which was designed to work with classical static networks must be enhanced to support mobility and many proposals have been made in this direction. The first is Mobile IP which is built in IPv6 but many other are willing to improve it in order to have a more efficient mobility management. This report focusses on a comparison of all these proposals in a global mobility framework. We define this framework in two steps: we first give a general description of the current (and expected) mobility landscape and we point out the major problems posed by the mobility management. These are mainly handoff management, passive connectivity, quality of service, scalability, security, ... We compare then on this base the five main IP mobility proposals: Mobile IP, Cellular IP, Hawaii, TeleMIP and EMA.

AB - Third generation wideband mobile networks are becoming a reality. Many operators are at the point of proposing GPRS (and soon UMTS) services to their customers. All these are actually evolving towards all-IP networks. This represents the fusion between the two famous current network technologies: the Internet and the mobile telephony/networking. IP which was designed to work with classical static networks must be enhanced to support mobility and many proposals have been made in this direction. The first is Mobile IP which is built in IPv6 but many other are willing to improve it in order to have a more efficient mobility management. This report focusses on a comparison of all these proposals in a global mobility framework. We define this framework in two steps: we first give a general description of the current (and expected) mobility landscape and we point out the major problems posed by the mobility management. These are mainly handoff management, passive connectivity, quality of service, scalability, security, ... We compare then on this base the five main IP mobility proposals: Mobile IP, Cellular IP, Hawaii, TeleMIP and EMA.

KW - TeleMIP

KW - GPRS

KW - Mobile IP

KW - Wireless network

KW - Hawaii

KW - EMA

KW - UMTS

KW - Cellular IP

M3 - Other contribution

ER -

Reinbold P, Bonaventure O. A comparison of IP Mobility Protocols. 2001.