**2.2 Scalability**

The objective of this simulation with different scenarios was to analyse QoS metrics in HMIPv6/MPLS integration with CBR traffic and the scalability. The table2 show the different scenarios simulated. The first scenario was proposal by R.Hsieh, the other scenarios were increasing the number nodes in order to test the scalability, the table show the results of different metrics analysed.

Mechamisms to Provide Quality of Service on 4G New Generation Networks 11

In order to extend the different results obtained in the simulations, the functions (figure15) show the behaviour of the different simulation scenarios. With these functions we could predict what will happen with the metrics (Delay, Throughput, Send and Received Packets) against the number of nodes. In this manner, we could predict what happen when the

> **Delay, Throughput, Sends and Received Packets Vs Nodes**

Fig. 15. The functions show the scalability of Delay, Throughput, send and received packets.

**y = -0.3203x2 + 23.585x - 91.681**

0 10 20 30 40 50 **Nodes**

**y = -4.3337x + 3819.3**

Delay(ms)

Throughput (Kbps) Sends Packets

Received Packets

number of nodes and flow are traffic is increased.

**y = 0.148x2 - 12.292x + 520.02**

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

**y = -941.5ln(x) + 5782**


Table 2. Results of different scenarios HMIPv6/MPLS integration

The table 2 shows the results of HMIPv6/MPLS integration. The metrics analysed were: delay, jitter, throughput, sent packets, received packets and lost packets. From the results obtained, we can affirm that, in general, the delay increases as the number of nodes increases. The jitter grows significantly when there are more than 25 nodes. The throughput shows a slight variation, but it does not follow a particular pattern. Sent packets, normally, remain constant; the received packets, generally, decrease as the number of nodes grows and the number of lost packets increases significantly when there are more than 25 nodes.

The figure 14 shows the results of the following metrics obtained of the table 2. In this manner can visualize the behaviour of delay, throughput, send and received packets against the quantity of number of nodes.

Fig. 14. Delay, throughput, send an received packets Vs. Number nodes

10 Mobile Networks

(Kbps)

The table 2 shows the results of HMIPv6/MPLS integration. The metrics analysed were: delay, jitter, throughput, sent packets, received packets and lost packets. From the results obtained, we can affirm that, in general, the delay increases as the number of nodes increases. The jitter grows significantly when there are more than 25 nodes. The throughput shows a slight variation, but it does not follow a particular pattern. Sent packets, normally, remain constant; the received packets, generally, decrease as the number of nodes grows and the number of lost packets increases significantly when there

The figure 14 shows the results of the following metrics obtained of the table 2. In this manner can visualize the behaviour of delay, throughput, send and received packets against

> **Delay, Throughput, Sends and Received Packets Vs Nodes**

9 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Delay(ms) Throughput (Kbps) Sends Packets Received Packets

9 Nodes 66,85 0,46 424,80 3734 3734 0% 15 Nodes 226,66 1,97 356,11 3734 3151 15,61% 20 Nodes 254,70 1,84 359,60 3734 3204 14,20% 25 Nodes 317,92 4,0 277,60 3734 2476 33,70% 30 Nodes 310,73 3,60 288,27 3734 2571 31,15% 35 Nodes 312,95 3,80 279,96 3734 2497 33,13% 40 Nodes 331,80 4,31 268,22 3734 2392 35,94% 45 Nodes 341,70 4,60 261,90 3467 2156 37,81%

Sends Packets Received Packets

Lost Packets (%)

Delay(ms) Jitter(ms) Throughput

Table 2. Results of different scenarios HMIPv6/MPLS integration

Fig. 14. Delay, throughput, send an received packets Vs. Number nodes

Scenario\ Metrics

are more than 25 nodes.

the quantity of number of nodes.

0

2000

4000

In order to extend the different results obtained in the simulations, the functions (figure15) show the behaviour of the different simulation scenarios. With these functions we could predict what will happen with the metrics (Delay, Throughput, Send and Received Packets) against the number of nodes. In this manner, we could predict what happen when the number of nodes and flow are traffic is increased.

Fig. 15. The functions show the scalability of Delay, Throughput, send and received packets.

Mechamisms to Provide Quality of Service on 4G New Generation Networks 13

Packets) against the number of nodes. In this manner, we could predict what happen when

In this case, we performed the HMIPv6/MPLS scenario simulation using CBR as test traffic. Various QoS metrics were analysed, such as delay, which on average was 66,82 ms; the jitter, which was rather variable, and throughput, which reached 446,0 Kbps on average. On the other hand, in the course of the simulation, 3,74 packets were sent and 207 were lost; that represents 5,54% of all packets. Therefore, we conclude that the simulation scenario showed very good values of delay and throughput, acceptable packet loss and very irregular jitter figures, so that, in order to achieve good levels of QoS, the performance of jitter has to be improved. A similar scenario with FHMIPv6 instead of HMIPv6 could solve this point.

One of the major problems encountered in the integration HMIPv6/MPLS is the amount of signaling load in Binding Update (BU). Especially in case of a handover. At the time of BU can cause problems of safety and quality of services. With respect to security can be sent or received malicious messages, relative to the quality of services, excessive signaling load can

For this reason, we propose FHMIPv6/MPLS integration as a mechanism that will avoid both these problems. FHMIPv6 has a process of pre and post registration which keeps the communication between the mobile node and access router. FHMIPv6 has a process of pre and post registration which solves the problem observed in HMIPv6/MPLS integration. This we can say based on the work of R. Hsieh. FHMIPv6/MPLS integration has been made in the same manner as HMIPv6/MPLS integration. This integration allows us to compare

Is important mentioned, Fast Handover for Mobile IPv6 (FMIP) is a mobile IP extension that allows the MN to set up a new CoA before a change of network happens. This is possible because it anticipates the change of the router of access when an imminent change of point of access is detected. This anticipation is important because it minimises the latency during

FHMIPv6 had been initially proposed by Robert Hsieh [hsieh03] as a way of integrating Fast Handover and HMIPv6 and shows why this integration is a better option than HMIPv6

The scenario simulated is shown in figure18. The MN is in the area of HA. Bandwidth

The traffic used was CBR, since it allows audio and video simulation in real time. These

Figure18 shows the topology of the simulated network. MPLS is the core of the network and is constituted by the following nodes: 1 (MAP), 2 (LSR1), 3 (LSR2), 4 (LSR3), 7 (LER1 for

the number of nodes and flow are traffic is increased.

**2.3 Conclusions** 

which is better.

alone.

**3.1 Scenario of simulation** 

applications have a high demand of QoS.

**3. FHMIPV6/MPLS integration** 

significantly degrade the QoS metrics evaluated.

the handover, when the MN is not able to receive packets.

configuration and delay of each link are shown below in table3.

The figure 16 shows the results of the following metrics obtained of the table 2. In this manner can visualize the behaviour of Jitter and Lost Packets with different number nodes.

Fig. 16. Jitter and Lost Packets vs. Number nodes

In order to extend the different results obtained in the simulations, the function (figure17) shows the behaviour for different scenarios of simulation. With this functions (Jitter, Lost

Fig. 17. The functions show the scalability of Jitter and Lost Packets vs. Number nodes

Packets) against the number of nodes. In this manner, we could predict what happen when the number of nodes and flow are traffic is increased.
