**3.1 Scenario of simulation**

The scenario simulated is shown in figure18. The MN is in the area of HA. Bandwidth configuration and delay of each link are shown below in table3.

The traffic used was CBR, since it allows audio and video simulation in real time. These applications have a high demand of QoS.

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

Mechamisms to Provide Quality of Service on 4G New Generation Networks 15

The objective of this simulation with different scenarios was to analyse QoS metrics in HMIPv6/MPLS integration with CBR traffic and the scalability. The table4 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 table4 shows that the delay, jitter, throughput and packet loss rate vary slightly as the topology and the network flow increase. Therefore, we can conclude that the FHMIPv6/MPLS integration keeps the quality of service (QoS) high, despite the growth of

Fig. 19. The MN moves towards the area of PAR

Fig. 20. The MN moves to the area of NAR

the results of different metrics analysed.

the network and the traffic flow.

**3.3 Scalability** 


Table 3. Bandwidth and delay configuration

MPLS and PAR for F-HMIPv6) and 8 (LER2 for MPLS and NAR for F-HMIPv6); the tag distribution protocol used by MPLS is RSVP.

Fig. 18. Scenario FHMIPv6/MPLS Integration

Every link shows two of their characteristics: bandwidth (in megabits or kilobits) and delay (in milliseconds). A few seconds later, the MN moves towards the area of PAR, as figure 19 proves.

Finally, the MN moves to the area of NAR (figure20).
