**5.2.6 Analysis of results**

The table 11 presents various facts to highlight: first, both the delay and the fluctuation do not exhibit increasing tendency as the number of nodes increases, this is important because

Mechamisms to Provide Quality of Service on 4G New Generation Networks 31

This chapter released the results of the integration FHAMIPv6/MPLS and features to provide QoS. This study is of considerable importance because it is the first to bring mobile capabilities, fast handover and hierarchical IP extensions to MPLS hybrid environments. Thus provides the basis for future research that want to implement prototypes in real

This chapter is focused on all IPv6/MPLS scheme for wireless mobile networks. We presented different integrations of mobility protocols (versions6 IP protocol extensions) with quality of service (QoS) protocols (MLPS, RSVP). The initial integrations were performed in infrastructure networks. The results delivered valuable information on how the protocols operated as well as the different coupling options available. This shows that the best coupling option was that where it is necessary to modify the protocols in a way that all could work as one single protocol. Other options were discarded, since protocols operating independently or even synchronised did not deliver satisfactory results. Among the quality of service protocols, we managed to prove that the RSVP was valid as a signalling protocol. This was also confirmed at the IETF when protocol CR-LPD was discarded as a signalling

On the other hand, in order to integrate IP protocol extensions (IP mobile, HMIPv6, F-HMIPv6 and FHAMIPv6) and MPLS protocol, it was necessary to modify MPLS nodes to turn them into mobile MPLS nodes. It was proved that IP mobile protocol, when integrated with MPLS, works better in macromobility scenarios. For micromobility scenarios, it is more convenient to use hierarchical IP mobile extensions since the signalling load is higher. The integration MPLS and HMIPv6 protocol extensions formed a good coupling for infrastructure networks in order to provide QoS. On the contrary, in total ad-hoc networks it is almost impossible because MPLS/Diffserv provides end-to-end quality of service, and when integrated with HMIPv6, the signalling load was so high that the network resulted

Another problem was the compatibility of the source codes to perform the simulation to migrate from one version to another. The protocols did not work correctly. For this reason, we tested the F-HMIPv6 and MPLS protocols to verify if this was the best option to provide QoS to the next generation of mobile networks. In full ad-hoc mobile networks, FHMIPv6 showed diverse inconveniences, so it had to be modified to assume a new agent. This new agent was in the origin of the FHAMIPv6 protocol and the AHRA routing protocol. In order to solve the problem of the routing protocol AHRA, FHAMIPv6 was integrate with AODV and the result was successful. Similarly, we integrate FHAMIPv6 and MPLS and the result was satisfactory. With this result, we have achieved to propose an alternative to one of the great challenges of ad hoc networks. Because to provide QoS in ad hoc networks is a big

The quality of service values were obtained when a handover occurred and the results were satisfactory. In general, we can affirm that during a handover, not only metrics such as delay jitter and throughput improved, but also the default quality level was maintained in the integrations performed. The results obtained allowed us to identify which integration

**5.3 Conclusions** 

environments.

overloaded.

challenge.

**6. General conclusions** 

protocol when it was used together with MPLS.

it shows that the proposed integration is functional in the presence of more than 9 nodes and also that the metrics in question do not deteriorate significantly in scenarios of large volumes of nodes. Another important fact to highlight is that performance observes a relationship of inverse proportion to the number of nodes that make up the simulation scenario that is to say, that with more nodes the performance decreases, however this decrease is not linear but it is less affected with the presence of new nodes. As the tendency is presented, it could be said that it is possible that for scenarios of more nodes performance will be stabilized around a certain value, which means that the decrease has a limit. The last fact to note is that the proportion of lost packets does not increase as the number of nodes increases, but stabilizes after some growth in the network. Therefore we can conclude that the proposed integration is useful for providing QoS in scenarios with large volumes of nodes.


Table 8. Nodes vs. Different metrics

In this figure 39 we can visualize the following metrics (Delay, Jitter, Throughput, Send and Lost Packets vs. Number nodes). The Delay, Jitter and Throughput have slight variation. The throughput decreases when increasing the number nodes, likewise the send packets decreases when increased the number nodes and traffic flow. This behavior of these metrics is logical, we did not test with more nodes, because we believe that these tests is enough to make an analysis

Fig. 39. Metrics vs. number nodes in FHAMIPv6/MPLS integration
