IP micro-mobility support
IP micro-mobility support
• Overview:
• Mobile IP faces issues of long handover duration and limited
scalability.
• When many mobile nodes frequently change networks, it generates a
high load on:
• Home Agents (HA)
• Network infrastructure (due to registration and binding updates).
• IP Micro-Mobility protocols solve this by providing fast, seamless
handovers within limited areas.
• Goal:
Efficient handover management and reduced signaling overhead in
local mobility regions.
Concept and Working Principle
Concept:
• Micro-Mobility extends Mobile IP to handle frequent local movements
efficiently.
• The Home Agent (HA) only tracks the entry point to a local domain, not
every internal change.
• Intra-domain movements (within the same customer or campus network)
are handled locally, reducing load on HA.
Example:
• A client with a laptop connects at a customer site.
• The HA knows only the customer network’s entry point.
• Movements within that site (e.g., between access points) are managed
locally, without HA involvement.
Basic Idea:
• Keep frequent updates local, and inform the HA only when a major (inter-
domain) movement occurs.
Architecture and Key Insights
Hierarchy & Advantages:
• Micro-mobility protocols introduce a hierarchical mobility management structure.
• Benefits include:
• Reduced global signalling traffic
• Lower handover delays
• Improved routing efficiency and scalability
Implementation Debate:
• Should micro-mobility be implemented at:
• Layer 3 (IP Layer) — e.g., Cellular IP, HAWAII, HMIPv6
• Layer 2 (Link Layer) — e.g.,
• Inter-Access Point Protocol (IAPP) in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
• Mobility mechanisms in GSM / UMTS systems
Conclusion:
• IP Micro-Mobility complements Mobile IP by localizing handover control,
improving performance, and ensuring seamless mobility within smaller regions.
i. Cellular IP (Valko 1999 / Campbell 2000)
Concept
• Provides local handovers without renewed registration to the Home Agent.
• Each domain contains a Cellular IP Gateway (CIPGW) that acts externally as
a Foreign Agent.
• Within the domain, all nodes maintain routing information to Mobile
Nodes (MNs) based on the origin of packets sent by them toward the
CIPGW.
How it works (brief)
• Nodes inside the domain build routing state toward Mobile Nodes (MNs)
by observing packet origins from MNs to the CIPGW.
• Soft handovers: packets can be forwarded along multiple simultaneous
paths so an MN moving between adjacent cells may receive packets from
both old and new base stations (if lower layers support it).
Cellular IP (Valko 1999 / Campbell 2000)
Advantage
● Manageability: Cellular IP is mostly self-configuring, and integration of the
CIPGW into a firewall would facilitate administration of mobility-related
functionality. This is, however, not explicitly specified in (Campbell, 2000).
Disadvantages
● Efficiency: Additional network load is induced by forwarding packets on
multiple paths.
● Transparency: Changes to MNs are required.
● Security: Routing tables are changed based on messages sent by mobile
nodes. Additionally, all systems in the network can easily obtain a copy of all
packets destined for an MN by sending packets with the MN’s source address
to the CIPGW.
Basic architecture of cellular IP
ii. Hawaii (Handoff-Aware Wireless Access Internet
Infrastructure, Ramjee 1999)
Concept & Goals
• Designed to keep micro-mobility transparent to both Home Agents (HAs)
and Mobile Nodes (MNs).
Focuses on:
• High performance and reliability during handover.
• Quality of Service (QoS) support in IP-based mobile networks.
STEPS
1. On entering an HAWAII domain, MN obtains a co-located Care-of Address
(COA) and registers with its HA.
[Link] the MN moves to another cell, it sends a registration request to the
new base station (acting as a Foreign Agent).
3. The base station intercepts the request and issues a handoff update
message, reconfiguring routes along the path to the crossover router.
4. After successful reconfiguration, a registration reply is sent back to the MN.
Basic architecture of HAWAII
Hawaii (Handoff-Aware Wireless Access
Internet Infrastructure, Ramjee 1999)
Security & Authentication
• Uses challenge–response for MN authentication.
• Routing updates are initiated only by the foreign domain infrastructure, not by the MN.
• Can employ IPSec Authentication Header (RFC 2402) to protect handoff signaling
(though not explicitly defined in the original paper).
Advantages
● Security: Challenge-response extensions are mandatory. In contrast to Cellular IP, routing
changes are always initiated by the foreign domain’s infrastructure.
● Transparency: HAWAII is mostly transparent to mobile nodes.
Disadvantages
● Security: There are no provisions regarding the setup of IPSec tunnels.
● Implementation: No private address support is possible because of collocated COAs.
iii. Hierarchical mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6, Soliman 2002)
Concept
• HMIPv6 introduces a hierarchical architecture to manage micro-mobility
efficiently.
• Adds a Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) — a local agent that acts as a mini
Home Agent (HA) for a domain.
• The MAP handles local mobility within its domain, reducing signalling to the
global HA.
Working Mechanism
• Each MAP domain is defined by Access Routers (ARs) advertising MAP
information to connected Mobile Nodes (MNs).
• The MAP receives all packets on behalf of MNs, encapsulates and forwards
them to the MN’s Link Care-of Address (LCOA).
• The MN maintains two Care-of Addresses:
• Regional COA (RCOA): visible globally; remains constant inside the MAP domain.
• Link COA (LCOA): changes with local movement between ARs.
Basic architecture of hierarchical mobile IP
Hierarchical mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6, Soliman 2002)
Local Handover
• When an MN moves within the same MAP domain, it updates only the LCOA
with the MAP.
• The RCOA remains unchanged, minimizing global signalling.
• When moving to a new MAP domain, the MN sends a binding update to both
its HA and previous MAP for smooth transition.
Advantages
● Security: MNs can have (limited) location privacy because LCOAs can be
hidden.
● Efficiency: Direct routing between CNs sharing the same link is possible
Disadvantages
● Transparency: Additional infrastructure component (MAP).
● Security: Routing tables are changed based on messages sent by mobile
nodes. This requires strong authentication and protection against denial of
service attacks. Additional security functions might be necessary in MAPs