**1.5 IPv6/MPLS on LTE/SAE**

So far, we have briefly described what LTE/SAE consists of, the current requirements that have to be met to become the 4G standard and the most relevant concepts related to MPLS. Let us now look into the importance of supporting the LTE/SAE core with IP/MPLS.

The use of MPLS on LTE allows reusing much of 2G and 3G technologies, which means a low cost per bit. In addition, MPLS can handle the IP requirements for the wide range of services it supports. MPLS also supports any topology, including star, tree and mesh. On the other hand, IPv6/MPLS can give IP advanced traffic engineering, ensuring that traffic is properly prioritised according to its characteristics (voice, data, video, etc.) and the routes through the network are set up to prevent link failures. The use of differentiated services is also an important feature of MPLS, since Forwarding Equivalent Class (FEC) can perform different treatments to the services provided by IP, including an eventual integration with Diffserv. This contributes to provide a better quality of service (QoS).

In addition, because MPLS creates virtual circuits before starting the data transmission and uses special labelling, it is possible to deliver a better level of security when packets experience higher rates of transmission and processing, since the forwarding is performed according to the label without routing algorithms. This is another important aspect of IPv6/MPLS in order to meet the requirements related to the throughput. Finally, MPLS promotes the simplification of the integration architecture of IP and ATM and improves the users' QoS experience providing redundant paths to different FECs to prevent packet loss. The following figure shows how the transition to IPv6/MPLS will be as part of LTE.

Service providers and network operators want to ensure that their Radio Access Network (RAN) is able to support current technologies such as GSM and UMTS and new technologies such as LTE and WIMAX. At the same time, future broadband requirements must be met in an efficient and effective way. That is why service providers are choosing solutions based on IPv6/MPLS. This technology can fulfil current and future needs while reducing costs.

It is important to point out that the standard WIMAX and advanced WIMAX or mobile WIMAX, which is part of the evolution of IEEE (802.11, 802.16, etc.), complies with the requirements for 4G standard. WIMAX (802.16) can operate in both the core and access networks with IPv6/MPLS.

Mechamisms to Provide Quality of Service on 4G New Generation Networks 5

simulation scenario was made in a LAN and WAN networks. In these integrations, the RSVP protocol was used as signalling protocol while hierarchical MPLS nodes were used to

The results obtained in [2],[8],[9],[10] showed that this interoperability is a good alternative to provide QoS in LAN and WLAN networks. In order to better the load signalisation in a handover, in case of Binding Update the HMIPv6/MPLS was used as preliminary work with the idea of future integration FHMIPv6/MPLS and FHMIPv6/MPLS in Ad hoc

The scenario simulated is shown (R. Hsieh) in figure 3. The MN is in the area of HA. The traffic used was CBR because is most sensitive in audio/video application. The Bandwidth

> **Link Delay Bandwidth**  CN-LSR1 2ms 100Mb LSR1-HA 2ms 100Mb LSR1-MAP 50ms 100Mb MAP-LSR2 2ms 10Mb MAP-LSR3 2ms 10Mb LSR2-PAR 2ms 1Mb LSR3-NAR 2ms 1Mb

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

The figure 3 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 MPLS and PAR for HMIPv6) and 8 (LER2 for MPLS and NAR for HMIPv6); the tag

Every link shows two of their characteristics: bandwidth (in megabits or kilobits) and delay

The figure 3 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 MPLS and PAR for HMIPv6) and 8 (LER2 for MPLS and NAR for HMIPv6); the tag

Every link shows two of their characteristics: bandwidth (in megabits or kilobits) and delay

A few seconds later MN moves toward area PAR/LER as the figure 4 illustrate, finally the

distribution protocol used by MPLS is RSVP. Finally number 6 is the MN.

distribution protocol used by MPLS is RSVP. Finally number 6 is the MN.

MN moves to area NAR/LER as the figure 5 illustrates.

achieve interoperability of HMIPv6 and MPLS.

**2.1 HMIPv6/MPLS integration in a scenario with CBR** 

configuration and delay of each link go as follows:

networks.

**2.1.1 Simulation scenario** 

Table 1. Simulation scenarios

(in milliseconds).

(in milliseconds).

applications have a high demand of QoS.

Fig. 2. LTE to IP/MPLS and EPC

Currently, there is competition for the dominant 4G standard. Advanced LTE has a higher market share than advanced WIMAX because it is part of the evolution of GSM and UMTS networks and represents 80% of the worldwide market. However, WIMAX today has a significant market share in the United States. We believe that both LTE and WIMAX meet standard requirements and are compatible with the architectures proposed for an all IPv6/MPLS approach both in access networks as the core of the network.

This chapter is focusing in the integration of mobility protocol (IPv6 extensions) and the protocol of quality of services (MPLS). The RSVP protocol has been used as signalization protocol. The metrics of quality of services tested are: Delay, jitter, throughput, the send and received packets, these metrics were chosen because they are the most sensitives in a handover. The integrations tested in this chapter were: HMIPv6/MPLS, FHM IPv6/MPLS, FHAMIPv6/AODV and FHAMIPv6/MPLS. In order to achieve these integration was necessary modify the source codes and adapt the simulator versions (NS-2). In order to integrated protocols performance as a new protocol.
