Mathematics Common Parameters - Mathematics Essay Example

Common Parameters
(Time for processing update): Time which is needed by each node in order to import a new entry in its binding cache - Mathematics Common Parameters introduction.

(Time for processing label packet): Time which is needed by each node in order to add a label to the packet which is used for the promotion/forwarding of packet.

Need

essay sample on "Mathematics Common Parameters"

? We will write a cheap essay sample on "Mathematics Common Parameters" specifically for you for only $12.90/page

More Mathematics Essay Topics.

(Time for processing update table): The time which is needed by each node in order to renew its table, for instance by importing a new entry that represents LSP that has been established between the two nodes.

(Time for processing check): The time that is required by the MAP or the HA or any similar node in order to look at its table and connect/relate to its binding cache, the RCoA with the LCoA of MN.

(Time processing): This time is defined as the maximum time that is required by a single node for the processing of some concrete activity.

(Time for propagation): The time that is required for the distribution/propagation of message until a particular message is sent to its final destination. This time is influenced to a large extent by the number of nodes (should be nodes or links? What do you think?) links I corrected it that is found in the path of transport. The total time of distribution is calculated as follows: .  is fixed as the maximum/largest time that is required by a single link for the transmission of message.

The time that is required for the establishment of LSP between the two nodes. This time is influenced to a large extent by the number of links between the nodes (should be nodes or links? What do you think?) links I corrected it, that participate in the establishment of LSP. The total time of establishment of LSP between two nodes is fixed as follows: .  is fixed as biggest time that is required by each node for the establishment of LSP.

(Total time of propagation): The total time of distribution that is required for the complete operation of a concrete activity.

(Total time for processing): The total time of processing that is required for the complete operation of a concrete activity.

:                 Number of links between MN and LER/FA

:                   Number of links between MN and LERG

:              Number of links between LER/FA and LERG

:                    Number of links from LERG to HA

:                    Number of links from LERG to BS

:                      Number of links from BS to MN

:              Number of links between LER/FA and new BS

:             Number of links between MN and new LER/FA

:           Number of links between new LER/FA and LERG

:              Number of links between MN and old LER/FA

:     Number of links between new LER/FA and old LER/FA

:                    Number of links between FA and LERG

:                  Number of links between FA and LER/FA

:                      Number of links between FA and MN

:                   Number of links between remaining FAs and MN

Micro-Mobile MPLS (Integration of MIP & MPLS)

7.         Langar, Bouabdallah and Tohme (2006) give the analysis of Micro-Mobile MPLS, which integrates Mobile IP and MPLS protocols using a two level hierarchy. Their proposal has two variants. In the first variant, called FH-Micro Mobile MPLS, we consider the fast handoff mechanism, which anticipates the LSP procedure setup with the neighboring subnets to reduce service disruption. In the second variant, called FC-Micro Mobile MPLS, the forwarding chain mechanism, which is a set of forwarding paths, is provided to track efficiently the host mobility within a domain. The forwarding chain can reduce registration update cost and provide low handoff latency.

Mobile Node Registration in Micro Mobile MPLS

 

 

a.                   MN sends solicitation message to LER/FA and receives Advertisement message from it which takes time

b.                  When an MN moves for the first time into a Micro-mobile MPLS foreign domain, it sends a mobile IP registration request message to the nearest LER/FA taking a time

c.                   The LER/FA records this MN home address in its routing table taking a time of .

d.                  The LER/FA relays the registration message to the LERG of this domain taking a time of

e.                   When LERG gets the registration message, and knows the Regional care-of address (RCoA) which corresponds to the IP address of the current LER/FA, The LERG sends a registration message to the HA of the MN taking a time of

f.                    The LERG uses its IP address as the CoA to perform the global registration for the inter-domain mobility taking a time

g.                  The LERG records this MN home address in its routing table taking a time of

h.                  The LERG receives a registration reply from HA which takes time

i.                    LERG establishes an LSP between it and the current LER/FA with the RCoA as the FEC taking a time .

j.                    The LERG sends a registration reply to LER/FA which takes time

k.                  LER/FA then relays the registration reply message to BS taking time  (This link is wrong the signal on the diagram is sent from the LER/FA to the BS), Corrected which in turn sends the registrations reply to MN taking a total time of

Resultant Equations

 

Packet Delivery Procedure

 

a.                   After registration LERG changes the row in its label table that uses the MN home address as FEC and sets the empty outgoing label and outgoing port entries to the values of the outgoing label and outgoing port of the LSP from the LERG to the current LER/FA. This takes time

b.                  Hence, LERG can now relay packets destined to the MN home address to its current location in the foreign network which would take time

Hence, Total time for packet delivery after registration would be

Handoff Support procedure in Micro Mobile MPLS

There are two types of handoff in the scheme: Intra-LER and Inter-LER handoffs. An Intra-LER handoff occurs when the MN moves between two BSs managed by the same LER/FA. An Inter-LER handoff occurs when a new BS and the old BS are under different LER/FAs.

Intra-LER handoff

a.                   Once the association to the current BS is lost, the MN sends a Movement signalling message to the current LER/FA with a time of , which initiates the buffering mechanism and stores in-flight packets (Probably lost during the handoff period). The time taken for this is given by + . We do we need tprocup since no binding cache and also why tproclp since no adding to labels is done? For buffering mechanism and storage (may be modification)  of in-flight packets

b.                  Then, the MN will scan the air interface for a new BS. If it finds one, it will register at layer 2 with that BS and either wait for a Mobile IP Advertisement message sent from the LER/FA or it will issue a Mobile IP Solicitation message. In any case, the MN examines the LER/FA’s IP address. This address is the same as before Intra-LER handoff, which means that the MN is under the same IP subnet. This process takes  (Since one of the two cases is followed)

c.                   The MN issues a local interface-update message in the subnet to which the MN belongs, so that all stations in the same subnet, especially the current LER/FA, update their ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) cache, taking time  (Concrete activity by a number of nodes)

d.                  The current LER/FA stops the buffering mechanism and forwards in-flight packets destined for the MN toward the new BS. This takes time  (Since packets are essentially messages of some kind). It must be noted that an Intra-LER handoff is basically an L2 handoff and also no message is sent to the LERG to take advantage of the common path between it and the LER/FA.

Total handoff time in this case is given by

 

 

Inter-LER Hand off

 

a.                   New LER/FA sends advertisement message to MN which takes time

b.                  When MN finds that it has entered a new IP subnet, it sends a registration request to the new LER/FA in time  and performs steps which is same as in the registration procedure

c.                   The New LER/FA records this MN home address in its routing table taking a time of

d.                  It relays the registration message to the LERG of this domain taking a time of

e.                   New LER/FA sends a handoff notification to the old LER/FA and there is a handoff acknowledgement which takes a total time of  (This signal is wrong it is the New LER/FA that sents the notification and not the MN) corrected

f.                   When the old LER/FA receives its notification message it stops the buffering mechanism and forwards the in-flight packets destined for the MN to the new subnet. This takes time  (Since packets are essentially messages of some kind).

g.                  After this the corresponding table is updated by the LERG which takes a time

h.                  LSP is then established between LER/FA and LERG, which takes a time of

i.                    LERG then sends the registration reply to the New LER/FA taking  and the New LER/FA sends it to the MN along the established LSPs taking a time

 

The total time except the registration period time is

 

Handoff in FH (Fast Handoff) Micro Mobile MPLS

This is explained by Langar, Bouabdalaah, Tohme (2006) give the mechanism as below:

a.                   Once an MN enters an overlapped area of the boundary cells of two subnets, it receives a new beacon from the possible new AP in time

b.                  MN notifies the current LER/FA for the possible handoff by sending a handoff initiate signalling message in time

c.                   LER/FA looks into its neighbour mapping table to get the new LER/FA’s IP address in time

d.                  LER/FA then informs the LERG for the possible handoff operation in time

e.                   LERG initiates the lsp procedure and established an lsp with the new LER/FA, which takes time .

f.                   The current LER/FA informs the MN for the new RCoA by sending a neighbour advertisement message which takes time

g.                  New LER/FA forwards the mobile IP registration request message to the LERG in time

h.                  LER/FA notifies the old LER/FA for the handoff event in time

i.                    As soon as LERG receives the mobile IP registration request it activates the pre-established passive LSP in time  and the traffic is delivered through this.

j.                    Once the old LER/FA is notified the in-flight packets are forwarded to the MN through the new LER/FA. This takes time  (Since packets are essentially messages of some kind). I DID Not understand why we multiply with 2 links and what are these links? The messages go through the LER/FA to MN via FA

Total time for handover is given by

Registration for FH MMPLS

In case of Fast Handoff type Micro Mobile MPLS, the registration process is the same as the basic registration process. However, there are some changes, which make the registration faster. The MN can start the registration process with the LERG before receiving the new Mobile IP advertisement message from the new FA. So one  parameter is reduced. Also, as soon as the MN establishes a physical connection with the new BS, it initiates its registration with the LERG and informs its arrival. Therefore, the pre-established passive LSP will be activated and traffic will be delivered through the activated LSP. Hence,  reduces to just one parameter

The registration equations are as follows:

 

 

Handoff in FC (Forward Chain) Micro Mobile MPLS

Registration

In this technique, each time that the MN moves to a new subnet, the new RCoA will be registered at the old LER/FA instead of the LERG. By this procedure, the old LSP between the LERG and the old subnet will be extended from the old FA to the new one. This scheme enables a significant reduction of the local registration update messages sent by the MN to the LERG. The equations now do not have the extra messages from LER/FA to LERG

 

 

Since we have added registration for the FH, could we add the registration also for the FC? It was added below by mistake I placed it here

This is explained by Langar, Bouabdalaah, Tohme (2006) give the mechanism as below:

a.                   When MN moves to a new subnet a new RCoA is registered at the old LER/FA

b.                  The existing LSP between the LERG and the old subnet will be extended from the old FA to the new one in time Do we finally need this signal-time or not? We do

c.                   MN has a buffer for storing IP address of the LER/FAs, which is updated in time .

d.                  Packets travelling towards the MN are intercepted by the first LER/FA in the chain and are then forwarded along the chain of LER/FAs. It takes time .

e.                   To avoid delays a threshold on length is set. When this threshold is reached, the MN registers to the LERG taking time of  (why tprocc? shouldn’t be tproc?) because it just check the cache doesn’t do any change to the table and deletes all addresses in the buffer taking time .

f.                   The current serving LER/FA strips off the label and sends the packet to the MN taking a time of + .

g.                  Else MN registers to LERG and updates its new RCoA to the root of the domain directly taking a time of

The total time for handover will be as given below:

In case the threshold is not exceeded

In case the threshold is exceeded

 

In case the Threshold is not exceeded, the time for processing would be

Total time for handover would be

In case the Threshold is exceeded, the time for processing would be

Total time for handover would be

 

Total Time

Case- I Intra-LER Handoff

Case- II Inter-LER Handoff

Case III FH MM MPLS

Case IV FC MM MPLS

OR

Why this registration has been analyzed here? Where does it fit? It relates to what?

Since you have written many registrations(Registration and Packet Delivery) could we please distinguish them as we did for the handoff methods(Handover and Packet Delivery)? added

 

 

Basic Registration

(Time for registration = a+ b+ c+ e+ h + k)

LSP set up and establishment

(Time for LSP = d+ f+ g+ i+ j)

 

Intra-LER Handoff

Handover

(Time for Handover = a+ b+ c)
Packet Delivery

(Time for Packet Delivery = d)

Inter-LER Handoff

Handover

(Time for Handover = a+ b+ c+ d+ e+ g+ h)

Packet Delivery

(Time for Packet Delivery = f)

 

Handoff in FH Micro Mobile MPLS

Handover

(Time for Handover a+ b+ c+ d+ e+ f+ g+ h)

Packet Delivery

(Time for Packet Delivery =i)

 

Handoff in FC Micro Mobile MPLS

Case IV FC MM MPLS

Handover

(Time for Handover a+ b+ c+ e+ f+ g)

Case A (threshold not exceeded)

Case B (threshold exceeded)

Packet Delivery

(Time for Packet Delivery =d)

Case A (threshold not exceeded)

Case B (threshold exceeded)

Test Case Scenarios
This section will analyze the transport of packets from MN to CN via different scenarios, based on the location of MN and CN in the network domain. Total five scenarios have been separated and analyzed here:

Some new parameters need to be defined, for the number of links between CN and the various layers. They are as below:

:                 Number of links between CN and LER/FA

:                    Number of links between CN and LERG

:                       Number of Links between MN and CN if they are in the same Base station
Scenario 1 – MN and CN are found in the Home Network
Also why in this scenario we only use the Normal MMMPLS proposed by Langar and not also the FC anf FH MMMPLS? Because here there is no network change, which is, where the two protocols differ. Otherwise they are similar to the normal MMPLS (so long as there is no LER/FA change)

 

When MN and CN are both in the Home network, the process for registration and handoff does not arise unless the MN moves from is base station.

CASE A – If MN does not move from its base station, the case will continue as below:

When the CN wishes to communicate with the MN, first it will look at binding cache for an entry with the CoA of MN. The time taken would be
There would be no entry in the binding cache in this case, since the MN is in the home network and its original base station, so the CN can send the packets directly to the MN without any interfacing layer in this case which would take time .
The total time taken for this complete process would be

 

CASE B – If MN moves away from its base station, the case will continue as below:

a.                   There will be an Intra-LER handoff taking place, because of the hierarchical architecture of the Micro-mobile MPLS. The two base stations are managed by the same LER/FA. This kind of handoff is basically L2 (link-layer) handoff. The total time for this type of handoff has already been calculated and can be given as below:

b.                  Now the CN is in the home network and so when it wishes to communicate with the MN, first it will look at binding cache for an entry with the CoA of MN. The time taken would be

c.                   The MN has not moved away from its home network, however, it has moved to a new base network effectively changing its position, so CN will update the entry in its binding cache, taking a time of

d.                  Since they are under same LER/FA CN will send the packet to the LER/FA taking a time of

e.                   The LER/FA will transfer these packets to the new base station where MN is present which is already calculated as

The total time for this communication is given by:

Scenario 2 – MN is found in the Home Network and CN in Foreign Network 1
Also why in this scenario we only use the Normal MMMPLS proposed by Langar and not also the FC anf FH MMMPLS? Because here there is no network change, which is, where the two protocols differ. Otherwise they are similar to the normal MMPLS (so long as there is no LER/FA change)

When MN is in the Home Network and CN is in Foreign Network I, two sub cases might arise.

CASE A – If MN does not move from its base station, the case will continue as below:

a.                   When the CN wishes to communicate with the MN, first it will look at binding cache for an entry with the CoA of MN. The time taken would be

b.                  CN will find the entry telling the location of MN as in its original base station in the home network. CN will then establish an LSP between its LER/FA and the LERG which would take time

c.                   Following this, the LERG and CN’s LER/FA should renew their tables by adding a new entry that will represent the particular LSP that has been established between them. The total time taken for this would be

d.                  CN’s LER/FA needs some time of processing  for adding a label in the packet and promoting via the recent LSP that has been established.

e.                   After this the CN will transfer the packet to the LERG which will take a total time of

f.                   LERG will find the MN in its original base station in the home network and will direct these packets to the BS taking a time of

The total time for this process is given by

CASE B – If MN does moves away to a new base station, the case will continue as below:

a.                   There will be an Intra-LER handoff-taking place, because of the hierarchical architecture of the Micro-mobile MPLS. The two base stations are managed by the same LER/FA. This kind of handoff is basically L2 (link-layer) handoff. The total time for this type of handoff has already been calculated and can be given as below:

b.                  Now the CN is in the Foreign Network I and so when it wishes to communicate with the MN, first it will look at binding cache for an entry with the CoA of MN. The time taken would be

c.                   The MN has not moved away from its home network, however, it has moved to a new base network effectively changing its position, so CN will update the entry in its binding cache, taking a time of

d.                  CN will find the entry telling the location of MN as in its original base station in the home network. CN will then establish an LSP between its LER/FA and the LERG which would take time

e.                   Following this, the LERG and CN’s LER/FA should renew their tables by adding a new entry that will represent the particular LSP that has been established between them. The total time taken for this would be

f.                   CN’s LER/FA needs some time of processing  for adding a label in the packet and promoting via the recent LSP that has been established.

g.                  After this the CN will transfer the packet to the LERG which will take a total time of

h.                  LERG will transfer these packets to the LER/FA of the MN which will take time

i.                    The LER/FA will transfer these packets to the new base station where MN is present which is already calculated as

The total time for this would be

 

Scenario 3 – MN is located in the Foreign Network2 and the CN in Home Network

Also why in this scenario we only use the FC and FH and not also the Normal MMMPLS proposed by Langar? We could use the normal MMMPLS but I thought we should concentrate on these two protocols. If you will I will add the part here. It will use Inter LER handoff in this case. It would be better to add it also

CASE A Using FH MMPLS protocol

a.                   As soon as the MN moves in a foreign network it registers with the network. The time for this is calculated earlier in equation 6 as

Since you are saying registers with the network why do you use the Thandover and not the Tregistration? Mistake (corrected)

b.                  After the LSPs are established, the MN performs a process of handover which would make it ready to receive messages sent from any other nodes given by equation 16 Could we please make sure that ALL the signals are correct?

The logic that you are using for each scenario’s case was thought by you? Or it was found exactly as described here in the paper? We have already calculated it in the section above, why calculate it again? There is no need to calculate it again I am just saying that we should make sure that all the signals are correct.

c.                   CN’s LER/FA contacts (What do you you mean by contact? Please specify also if it sends a particular message It means this point will start at the instant when CN wishes to contact MN, the communication takes place through LERG ok) the LERG when it wishes to communicate with the MN with takes time . This is then transferred to the LER/FA containing the MN, which takes time . Finally LER/FA passes on the message to the MN taking time  (This is really confusing – could you please make it more clear? Is the second equation related to the MN’s LER/FA? Yes CN – CN’sLER/FA – LERG – MN’s LER/FA – MN) Nice .Thanks

d.                  Then the CN renews the binding cache by adding an entry that will represent the MN in the new region that has been moved which takes time

e.                   LSP will be established between CN’s LER/FA and LERG taking a time of  (Could you please specify also what tlsp means i.e could we say that tlsp = 2tprop * numberoflinksfromAtoB since it contains label request and label mapping?) It would make things confusing because tlsp as a parameter value is an event which takes certain time. Ok but in case that it contains only the 2tprop * numberoflinksfromAtoB it would be better to have it as this. Is it so? Well I areally am not sure what exact messages are passed, like how many packets etc, so just tprop cannot be the answer

f.                   CN renews its table by adding an entry that will represent the LSPs that have been established to the new region of MN taking time (Shouldn’t this be tprocupt?Since we are updating a table. Please we have to be correct and constistent – All these errors will give us lot of errors at the graphs,. Comparisons and conclusions) changed Ok but you changed it because it was a mistake or because I asked it? I checked it, previously I had used the test case parameters in the 8222 document, but I read and found that the case is different here

g.                  CN then sends packets to the LERG via the LER/FA which takes time . The packets are then (then?ok)transferred to the MN’s new LER/FA taking time . Finally the LER/FA transfers the message to MN taking a time of

Also how do we make sure that ALL these logics are correct ? Please I have written a lot of comments. We should be precise, consistent and correct. The final results will be all erroneous if we have a lot of errors.  I have rechecked it

Total time for this is given by

CASE B Using FC MMPLS protocol

a.                   As soon as the MN moves in a foreign network it registers with the network. The time for this is calculated earlier in equation 7 as

b.                  After the LSPs are established, the MN performs a process of handover which would make it ready to receive messages sent from any other nodes. Assuming that the threshold for the forwarding chain is 4, this is still within limits, hence the time is given in equation 18 as:

Could you please explain where do we show that the forwarding chain is 4? And also in case that the forwarding chain is bigger? We should present it. Forwarding chain is a just threshold value, which I assumed as four for this study. Because after this the time for transfer will start becoming very large and so threshold needs to be reset. There is no need for the calculations to be shown because it is a logically assumed number beyond which the time becomes large (the same concept is applied in papers also where they assumed numerical values). In other words we shouldn’t show also a big threshold so that we could show if this mechanism is good or not? It doesn’t matter, they are just two cases. I anyways have handled this case separately for the FC MMPLS in the numerical analysis

c.                   CN’s LER/FA contacts the LERG when it wishes to communicate with the MN with takes time . This is then transferred to the LER/FA containing the MN which takes time  (shouldn’t we specify at this equation which LER-FA is? It doesn’t make a difference because the network is generally homogenous I think hope so). Finally LER/FA passes on the message to the MN taking time

d.                  Then the CN renews the binding cache by adding an entry that will represent the MN in the new region that has been moved which takes time   (why tproc and not tprocup since it does binding cache?) changed

e.                   LSP will be established between CN’s LER/FA and LERG taking a time of  (The previous comment applies here as well) I explained

f.                   CN renews its table by adding an entry that will represent the LSPs that have been established to the new region of MN taking time (why tproc again and not tprocupt since it updates its table?) changed

g.                  CN then sends packets to the LERG via the LER/FA, which takes time . The packets are then (then) transferred to the MN’s new LER/FA taking time . Finally the LER/FA transfers the message to MN taking a time of

Total time for this is given by

Scenario 4 – MN is found in Foreign Network2 and CN in Foreign Network2

CASE A Using FH MMPLS protocol

a.                   As soon as the MN moves in a foreign network it registers with the network. The time for this is calculated earlier in equation 6 as

Why Thandover? Shouldn’t be Tregistration? Changed

b.                  After the LSPs are established (you mean that in point a registration and lsp setup? yes), the MN performs a process of handover, which would make it ready to receive messages sent from any other nodes. This is calculation in equation 16 as

c.                   Then the CN renews the binding cache by adding an entry that will represent the MN in the new region that has been moved which takes time (once more shouldn’t be tprocup since it is binding of the cache? changed) and it will know that MN and CN are under the same network and hence the same LER/FA, there is now no need for an LSP to be established between external LERG (between LERG and what other node? I don’t understand your query here, there is no lsp established Please rearead your last sentence because I donot understand what do you mean by saying “there is now no need for an lsp to be established between external LERG” and I am saying between external LERG and which other? Lsp is between an ler/fa and lerg when MN or CN need to pass a message to another LER/Fa, this is not the case here) since data can now be transferred directly.

d.                  Here too there are two cases:

I.      MN and CN are under the same Base Stations – In this case CN and MN can send messages directly to each other, which takes time (so you mean intra-handoff? Or since it FH there is no intra? There is no intra since they are in the same base stations ok)

Total time taken in this case is

Not needed

II.      MN and CN are under different base Stations (you mean inter-handoff here? Or we can’t use this concept here? This is intra, inter is between two different ler/fas which is no anywahere in this case since they are both in same network for the case ok)

i.      MN moves to BS2, CN is in BS 1 – In this case an intra-LER handoff will take place, which will take time (given by equation 12)  CN will send the packets to the LER/FA, which will take time  LER/FA would send the packets to the new base station taking time . Finally these packets are sent to MN in time

Total time taken in this case is

 

ii.      Is this a subcase? Yes, there is a subcase I before it and this is the second one MN is in BS 1 and CN is in BS 2 – Here there would be no handover. The packets would be sent from CN to the LER/FA which will take time  LER/FA would send the packets to the base station taking time . Finally these packets are sent to MN in time

Total time taken in this case is

CASE B Using FC MMPLS protocol

a.                   As soon as the MN moves in a foreign network it registers with the network. The time for this is calculated earlier in equation 7 as

b.                  After the LSPs are established (same comment as before answered earlier), the MN performs a process of handover, which would make it ready to receive messages sent from any other nodes. Assuming that the threshold for the forwarding chain is 4 (same comment as before answered before), this is still within limits, hence the time is given by equation 18 as:

c.                   Then the CN renews the binding cache by adding an entry that will represent the MN in the new region that has been moved which takes time (same comment as before changed) and it will know that MN and CN are under the same network and hence the same LER/FA, there is now no need for an LSP to be established between external LERG since data can now be transferred directly.

e.                   Here too there are two cases:

I.      MN and CN are under the same Base Stations – In this case CN and MN can send messages directly to each other which takes time

Total time taken in this case is

Not Needed

II.      MN and CN are under different base Stations

i.      MN moves to BS2, CN is in BS 1 – In this case an intra-LER handoff will take place which will take time  CN will send the packets to the LER/FA which will take time  LER/FA would send the packets to the new base station taking time . Finally these packets are sent to MN in time

Total time taken in this case is

 

ii.      MN is in BS 1 and CN is in BS 2 – Here there would be no handover. The packets would be sent from CN to the LER/FA, which will take time  LER/FA would send the packets to the base station taking time . Finally these packets are sent to MN in time

Total time taken in this case is

 

Scenario 5 – MN is found in Foreign Network2 and CN in Foreign Network1

This scenario is similar to scenario 3, because both the MN and CN are in different networks, and hence the communication will be through the LERG.

Could you please also include the diagram that is used for all these scenarios? You mean just copy and paste the diagram you sent me as a reference diagram? I donot know which one you used is the one I designed or the one in 8222_test_Cases_en.doc? I added the figure below

CASE A Using FH MMPLS protocol

a.                   As soon as the MN moves in a foreign network it registers with the network. The time for this is calculated in equation 6 as

Same comment as before for the Thandover changed

b.                  After the LSPs are established, the MN performs a process of handover which would make it ready to receive messages sent from any other nodes.l This is given by equation 16 as

Is this the equation equation for the Thandover? Would it be possible to number the defined equations found so that we used them in the scenarios or any other easy way?  Yes. I will do that will the next uploaded copy since I need to cross check it all. Yes of course please try to make sure that we can have constistency, coherence, correctness so that we have an excellent work

c.                   CN’s LER/FA contacts the LERG when it wishes to communicate with the MN with takes time . This is then transferred to the LER/FA containing the MN, which takes time . Finally LER/FA passes on the message to the MN taking time

h.                  Then the CN renews the binding cache by adding an entry that will represent the MN in the new region that has been moved which takes time  (same comment as before changed)

i.                    LSP will be established between CN’s LER/FA and LERG taking a time of  (same comment as before explained before)

j.                    CN renews its table by adding an entry that will represent the LSPs that have been established to the new region of MN taking time  (same comment as before changed)

k.                  CN then sends packets to the LERG via the LER/FA which takes time . The packets are transferred to the MN’s new LER/FA taking time . Finally the LER/FA transfers the message to MN taking a time of

Total time for this is given by

CASE B Using FC MMPLS protocol

a.                   As soon as the MN moves in a foreign network it registers with the network. The time for this is calculated earlier in equation 7 as

b.                  After the LSPs are established, the MN performs a process of handover which would make it ready to receive messages sent from any other nodes. Assuming that the threshold for the forwarding chain is 4, this is still within limits, hence the time is given by equation 18 as: (same comment as before explained before)

c.                   CN’s LER/FA contacts the LERG when it wishes to communicate with the MN with takes time . This is then transferred to the LER/FA containing the MN which takes time . Finally LER/FA passes on the message to the MN taking time

d.                  Then the CN renews the binding cache by adding an entry that will represent the MN in the new region that has been moved which takes time   (same comment as before changed)

e.                   LSP will be established between CN’s LER/FA and LERG taking a time of (same comment as before explained before)

f.                   CN renews its table by adding an entry that will represent the LSPs that have been established to the new region of MN taking time (same comment as before changed)

g.                  CN then sends packets to the LERG via the LER/FA, which takes time . The packets are transferred to the MN’s new LER/FA taking time . Finally the LER/FA transfers the message to MN taking a time of

Total time for this is given by

 

Calculation of total time

Following is the base timing diagram for the number of links.

LER/FA 2
LERG
For understanding please refer langar’s diagrams. They explain using similar diagram. Everything is very clear in the picture given there, and is the one I used for analysis.

MN and CN move from HA to different base stations in the 5 scenarios.

The langar’s diagram, is given below for your reference

 

Timing data for each of the process involved in sending a packet from CN to MN is as below:

, , , , , ,

 

The number of links is taken as below.  HA is assumed as the old LER/FA.

(Since we are assuming that a minimum of 2 nodes (MN and CN can be within a BS, which is at a level above MN) BS-MN=1

(LERG is at a level above LER/FA. LERG caters to 3 such links as shown in the simple diagram: LER/FA 1, LER/FA 2 and HA) LERG-LER/FA = 1 (1 or 2 or HA) = 1

(Given above)

(Same reason as above) – In the diagram we are assuming new LER/FA as LER/FA 2 and old as LER/FA 1

, (MN is within a BS, which is within an LER/FA. There are 2 AR or BS under an LER/FA as shown in the simple diagram, each of which in turn has minimum 2 nodes MN and CN) MN-BS-LER/FA = 2

(Same reason as above)

(Same reason as above)

(Same reason as above)

(LER/FA has to cross the switch layer so this value is assumed) LER/FA1 (or old)-LERG-LER/FA (or new) = 2

(Same calculation as above)

(Same calculation as above)

Both the values above wont change with the different location, because in any case CN or MN will still be under an AR or BS of an LER/FA, which in turn is under LERG)

(Assuming that both MN and CN are in the same BS and can send messages directly to each other through the existing links) MN-BS-CN=2

 

Case I – Basic MMPLS Procedure

a.                   Registration – Given by equation 10

b.                  LSP Set up – Given by equation 11

c.                   Packet Delivery – Given by equation 2

a.       For Single Packet

b.      For 10 Packets

Case II – Intra LER Handoff

Here,  (Assumed that there are 2 base stations in each of the LER/FA to which the MN sends messages)

a.                   Handover Time – Given by equation 12

b.                  Time for Packet Delivery Assuming single Packet – Given by equation 13

c.                   Time for Packet Delivery Assuming 10 packets – Given by equation 13

Case III – Inter LER Handoff

a.                   Handover Time – Given by equation 14

b.                  Time for Packet Delivery Assuming single Packet – Given by equation 15

c.                   Time for Packet Delivery Assuming 10 packets – Given by equation 15

Case IV – FH Micro Mobile MPLS

Handover (Given by equation 16)
Packet Delivery Assuming single Packet (Given by equation 17)

Packet Delivery Assuming 10 packets (Given by equation 17)
Registration (Given by equation 6)
Case V – FC Micro Mobile MPLS
a.                   Registration (Given by equation 7)

b.                  Here, threshold is not exceeded

(Single Packet)

(10 Packets)
Test Case Scenarios
Case VI – Scenario 1 – MN and CN are found in the Home Network

CASE A

a.                   For Single Packet

b.                  For 10 Packets

Case B
a.                   For Single Packet

b.                  For 10 Packets

 

Case VII – Scenario 2 – MN is found in the Home Network and CN in Foreign Network 1

Case A

a.                   For Single Packet

b.                  For 10 Packets

Case B

a.                   For Single Packet

b.                  For 10 Packets

Case VIII – Scenario 3 – MN is found in Foreign Network2 and CN in Home Network

Case A FH-MMPLS

a.                   For Single Packet

b.                  For 10 Packets

Case B FC-MMPLS

a.                   For Single Packet

b.                  For 10 Packets

Case IX – Scenario 4 – MN is found in Foreign Network2 and CN in Foreign Network2

Case A FH-MMPLS

Case I – MN and CN are under the same Base Stations

a.       For Single Packet

b.      For 10 Packets

Case B FC-MMPLS

Case I – MN and CN are under the same Base Stations

For Single Packet
For 10 Packets
Case X – Scenario 5 – MN is found in Foreign Network2 and CN in Foreign Network1

Case A FH-MMPLS
a.                   For Single Packet

b.                  For 10 Packets

Case B FC-MMPLS

a.                   For Single Packet

b.                  For 10 Packets

 

Analysis of times for the Registration in case of basic MMPLS and different schemes

Analysis of times for the Handover in case of basic MMPLS and different schemes

Analysis of times for the Handover time in case of basic MMPLS and different schemes (Case 1 to 5)

Analysis of total times for the different scenarios (Case 6-10)

 

 

 

 

 

Explanations for case 1 (in the message)

A handoff takes place when MN moves from one BS to the next one. There can be two cases here:

1.      The BS or AR is under the same LER/FA, which is intra LER handoff e.g between AR3 and AR 4 under LER/FA1 (case 1 in figure)

2.      The BS or AR are under different LER/FA, which is inter LER/FA handoff e.g. between AR3 and AR2 (case 2 in figure)

The reason I have used the transition between HA and LER/FA is because of the level of hierarchy. HA might have multiple BS (not mentioned in your diagram, but this is a real possibility). In this case, when the MN moves it will be from a BS in the HA to a BS in the LER/FA (any one of the ARs. If you had given some name to the base station in HA where MN was originally placed, then the case 1 in the message would be for e.g ARx (in HA) to AR3 (In LER/FA). But this is not mentioned in your case. Also, MN can move to any of the two ARs (3 or 4) from HA, hence to simplify things I just mentioned a shift from HA to LER/FA 1. Because the main concern here is the inter-LER handoff which would take place in this case, and not which AR the MN is. The very simple diagram (it is not a real accurate figure just from explanation of this part) Diagram below explains this:

HA                                                                                        LER/FA 1

 

Case 2

Case 2

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get your custom essay sample

For Only $13/page