GATEWAY DISCOVERY AND SELECTION SCHEME

FOR MOBILE AD HOC NEMO

BY

ZAINAB SENAN MAHMOOD

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirement for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Engineering)

Kulliyyah of Engineering

International Islamic University Malaysia

JULY 2017

ii

ABSTRACT

The fast growing of the Internet applications and the need of the continuous ongoing

connection brought new challenges for researchers to provide new solutions to

guarantee the Internet access for mobile hosts and networks. The globally reachable,

Home-Agent based, and infrastructure Network Mobility (NEMO) and the local,

multi-hop, and infrastructure-less Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) developed by

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) are supporting different topologies of the

mobile networks. A new architecture was proposed to deal with the inefficiency of the

Nested NEMOs as well as the global connectivity issues of MANET by combining

both topologies to obtain Mobile Ad Hoc NEMO (MANEMO). However, the

integration of NEMO and MANET introduces many challenges such as the redundant

tunnel problem and Exit Router selection when multiple Exit Routers to the Internet

exist. This research aims to propose MANEMO Gateway Discovery and Selection

Scheme (MGDSS) which discovers and selects the gateway which improves the

performance and the robustness of the network regardless of routing protocol used.

This is done by extending the Tree Discovery Protocol (TDP) used by NEMO BSP

and the Neighborhood Discovery protocol used by MANET. Every Mobile Router

(MR) receives the information about all the Internet gateways in the network and

selects the gateway based on multiple criteria: the hop count, the nested level, the

stable time and the number of nodes registered at the intermediate nodes. The routing

of packets in the MANEMO is proposed to be based on the selected gateway, as for

NEMO gateway the tree structure will be used and for MANET gateway it depends on

the routing protocol used. The OPNET Modeler 14.5 is used to evaluate the proposed

scheme as well as the mathematical approach to benchmark with the standard NEMO

BSP and the Multihomed MANEMO (M-MANEMO) approach. The results show that

the average data packets dropped in WLAN connecting the MRs of the proposed

scheme is 28.6% less compared to the NEMO BSP and 63% compared to the M-

MANEMO. With fast mobility, the average WLAN delay of M-MANEMO is 14.3%

more than the other two approaches. Also in a larger scale MANEMO with high

traffic load and fast mobility, the MGDSS outperforms the M-MANEMO with

reduced end-to-end delay around 21.6%. Whereas NEMO BSP has 68.7% more end-

to-end delay compared to MGDSS. These delays cause the MGDSS to have 66.6%

less voice jitter compared to M-MANEMO.

iii

البحث ةصلاخ

، لها متواصلالتطوّر السريع لتطبيقات الإنترنت والحاجة الملحة لتوفير اتصال ظهرت تحديات جديدة أمام الباحثين مع ىندسة مهام فريق طورقد . و الأجهزة المتنقلة والشبكات المتحركة بالإنترنت توصيلتضمن جديدةحلول مما يتطلبالهيكلية المعدّة ( ذاتNEMOتدعم ىيكليات إنترنت مختلفة ومنها الشبكة المتحركة )شبكات ( IETFالإنترنت )

( ذات نقاط MANET)، بالإضافة إلى الشبكة المحلية ويمكن الوصول إليها عالمياً الوسائط المحليةالتي تعتمد مسبقاً و مثالية عدم تم اقتراح بناء شبكي جديد يتعامل مع مشكلة لاحقاً، والتي لا تحتاج إلى تنظيم مسبق. الاتصال المتعددة

( وأيضاً مشاكل ربط الشبكة المحلية Nested NEMOفاعلية الشبكات المتحركة المتشابكة )مسار الاتصال وعدم (MANET بالشبكة العالمية، وذلك بدمج كلا الهيكليتين معاً للحصول على ىيكلية جديدة تدعى )(MANEMO( لكن ىذا الدمج بين .)NEMO(و )MANETنتج عنو ) تحديات جديدة مثل مشكلة

يهدف ىذا كيفية اختيار النقطة المناسبة للاتصال بالإنترنت عند العثور على نقاط كثيرة. و غير الضرورية، نفاق المرور بالأوتبقيها متصلة لاكتشاف نقاط الاتصال بالإنترنت واختيار أفضلها لتطوير الأداء MGDSS البحث لتطوير طريقة

توسيع بروتوكول استكشاف الهيكلية الشجرية تم ذلك ب كول اختيار المسار المستخدم فيها.بغض النظر عن بروتو (TDP المستخدم )( فيNEMO BSP( وكذلك توسيع بروتوكول استكشاف النقاط المجاورة )NHDP )

( كل المعلومات الضرورية عن جميع MRاتصال متحرك ) حيث يستلم كل موجو(. MANETالمستخدم من قِبل )لى عدة عوامل وىي: عدد النقاط إويقوم باختيار البوابة الأنسب استناداً بوابات الاتصال بالإنترنت المتوفرة في الشبكة

النقاط المسجلة وفترة استقرار المسار، وعدد الوسيطة بين البوابة والموجّو المتحرك، وعدد الشبكات المتحركة المتشابكة، البوابة المختارة. فبوابة الشبكة المتحركة أما مسار تدرير البيانات إلى البوابة فهو يعتمد على نقاط المسار.للتواصل عبر

(NEMOتستخدم الهيكلية الشجرية، بينما تختلف ال )( طريقة في شبكةMANET باختلاف بروتوكول توجيو )والنهج الرياضي لتقييم النموذج المقترح ومقارنتو 5849OPNETتم استخدام برنامج المحاكاة المسار المستخدم فيها.

(. M-MANEMO( والنهج متعدد طرق الاتصال )NEMO BSPالمختارة وىي ) اريةالنماذج المعي مع ٪ مقارنة28.6 بمقدار انخفض في المخطط المقترح WLANفي أن متوسط حزم البياناتوأظهرت النتائج

(. مع التحرك السريع داخل الشبكة، M-MANEMO) ٪ مقارنة مع7:انخفض بمقدار و (NEMO BSPبـ)حجما مع حمل % مقارنة بالنهجين الآخرين. وفي شبكة أكبر M-MANEMO 5847يبلغ معدل التأخير في

معدل تأخير الحزم بمقدار بانخفاض M-MANEMOعلى MGDSS يتفوقأكبر وبحركة موجّهات سريعة، MGDSS. وتسببت ىذه التأخيرات بحصول %;4>:بمقدار NEMO BSP على قيتفو في حين ٪:654 .M-MANEMO ن% أقل م:4::سبة تشويو للصوت قدره نعلى

iv

APPROVAL PAGE

The thesis of Zainab Senan Mahmood has been approved by the following:

_____________________________

Aisha Hassan Abdalla

Supervisor

_____________________________

Othman Omran Khalifa

Co-Supervisor

_____________________________

Rafiqul Islam

Internal Examiner

_____________________________

Azween Abdullah

External Examiner

_____________________________

Mahamod Bin Ismail

External Examiner

_____________________________

Noor Mohammad Osmani

Chairman

v

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigations, except

where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently

submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.

Zainab Senan Mahmood

Signature ........................................................... Date .........................................

vi

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF

FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH

GATEWAY DISCOVERY AND SELECTION SCHEME FOR

MOBILE AD HOC NEMO

I declare that the copyright holders of this dissertation are jointly owned by the student

and IIUM.

Copyright © 2017 Zainab Senan Mahmood and International Islamic University Malaysia. All rights

reserved.

No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder

except as provided below

1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may

be used by others in their writing with due acknowledgement.

2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies (print

or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.

3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrieved system

and supply copies of this unpublished research if requested by other

universities and research libraries.

By signing this form, I acknowledged that I have read and understand the IIUM

Intellectual Property Right and Commercialization policy.

Affirmed by Zainab Senan Mahmood

……..…………………….. ………………………..

Signature Date

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillah, praise to Allah S.W.T for the completion of this research. It is

with His blessings and guidance that I am able to complete my work.

I also would like to express my sincere gratitude to my respective supervisor

Prof. Aisha Hassan Abdalla for her valuable guidance, enthusiastic encourage and

support in every stage of my research. Without her close supervision, guidance and

teaching this research would not be where it is.

I would like to thank my family and friends for their unending encouragement

and support.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii

Abstract in Arabic ..........................................................................................................iii

Approval Page ................................................................................................................ iv

Declaration ...................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... vii

Table of Contents .........................................................................................................viii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xii

List of Abbreviation ...................................................................................................... xv

List of Symbols ..........................................................................................................xviii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background ................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Research Motivation ..................................................................................... 6

1.4 Problem Statement and Its Significance ....................................................... 7

1.5 Research Hypothesis and Philosophy ........................................................... 8

1.6 Research Objectives ...................................................................................... 9

1.7 Research Approach ..................................................................................... 10

1.8 Research Scope ........................................................................................... 13

1.9 Thesis Organization .................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 14

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 14

2.6 Integrated MANET And NEMO (MANEMO) ........................................... 14

2.2.5 Network Mobility (NEMO) .............................................................. 15

2.2.6 Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) ................................................. 18

2.2.3 MANEMO Approaches .................................................................... 19

2.2.3.1 NEMO-Centric MANEMO (NCM) ........................................ 20

2.2.3.2 MANET-Centric MANEMO (MCM) ..................................... 21

2.2.3.3 Unified MANEMO Architecture (UMA) ............................... 23

2.2.3.4 eMANEMO ............................................................................. 24

2.2.3.5 NAT-MANEMO ..................................................................... 25

2.2.3.6 M-MANEMO ......................................................................... 26

2.2.4 IETF Contributions ........................................................................... 28

2.3 Gateway Discovery Mechanisms ................................................................ 33

2.7.1 IETF Contributions ........................................................................... 36

2.4 Gateway Selection Schemes ....................................................................... 40

2.5 Open Issues ................................................................................................. 43

2.6 Summary ..................................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER THREE: RESERCH METHODOLOGY ............................................ 46

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 46

3.2 Analytical Evaluation .................................................................................. 46

3.3 Simulation Evaluation ................................................................................. 47

ix

3.3.1Simulation Tools ................................................................................ 48

3.3.2 Discussion and Simulator Selection .................................................. 48

3.4 Performance Metrics ................................................................................... 49

3.4.1 Throughput ........................................................................................ 50

3.4.2 Voice Packet End-to-end Delay ........................................................ 50

3.4.3 Jitter ................................................................................................... 51

3.4.4 WLAN Dropped Data Packets .......................................................... 52

3.4.5 HTTP Page Response Time .............................................................. 52

3.4.6 Average TCP Delay .......................................................................... 52

3.4.7 Packet Delivery Overhead................................................................. 53

3.4.8 Handover Delay ................................................................................ 53

3.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... 53

CHAPTER FOUR: DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED GATEWAY SELECTION

SCHEME ..................................................................................................................... 54

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 54

4.2 Design Consideration .................................................................................. 54

4.3 The Architecture of The Proposed Design .................................................. 55

4.3.1 Goals ................................................................................................. 57

4.3.2 Assumptions ...................................................................................... 57

4.3.3 Gateway Discovery ........................................................................... 57

4.3.4 Internet Gateway Information‟s Tables ............................................ 61

4.3.5 Gateway Selection Mechanism ......................................................... 63

4.3.6 Gateway Selection Criteria ............................................................... 64

4.4 Operation of The Proposed Design ............................................................. 66

4.4.1 Mobile Node joining MANEMO ...................................................... 67

4.4.2 MANET connectivity to NEMO‟s Access Router ............................ 71

4.4.3 NEMO connectivity to MANET‟s gateway ...................................... 73

4.4.4 Gateway Selection ............................................................................. 74

4.5 Analytical Approach ................................................................................... 75

5.3.1 The End-to-End Delay ...................................................................... 77

5.3.2 Packet delivery overhead .................................................................. 83

5.3.3 Handover Delay ................................................................................ 86

4.6 Summary ..................................................................................................... 90

CHAPTER FIVE: EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED MANEMO

GATEWAY SELECTION SCHEME (MGDSS) ..................................................... 91

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 91

5.2 Simulation Approach .................................................................................. 91

5.2.1 Simulation Scenario and Parameters ................................................. 92

5.2.2 Simulation Results Analysis ............................................................. 99

5.3 Analytical Approach ................................................................................. 108

5.3.1 The End-to-End Delay .................................................................... 108

5.3.2 Packet delivery overhead ................................................................ 110

5.3.3 Handover Delay .............................................................................. 111

5.4 Discussion ................................................................................................. 112

5.5 Summary ................................................................................................... 114

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK ................................... 116

x

6.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 116

6.2 Contribution .............................................................................................. 117

6.7 Future Works ............................................................................................. 118

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 119

APPENDIX I: OPNET NODES FUNCTIONS ...................................................... 127

APPENDIX II: NETWORK SIMULATION TOOLS .......................................... 133

LIST OF PUBLICATION ........................................................................................ 141

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page No.

‎2.1 The Differences Between MCN and MCM 22

‎2.2 The Differences Between Grounded and Non-grounded MCM 23

‎2.3 Summary of Features of Existing Proposals 34

‎2.4 Comparison Between Different Gateway Discovery Schemes 35

‎2.5 The Single Parameters Used in Some Gateway Selection Methods 40

2.6 Gateway Selection Methods Based on Multiple Parameters 40

‎2.7 Solution Models for Gateway Selection in MANEMO 41

‎3.1 Comparison of the Simulators 48

‎4.1 List of Information Kept by MANET GW cache about its Serving

MNs 61

‎4.2 Information Kept by MNs Cache about MANET GWs 61

‎4.3 Information Kept by MNs Cache about NEMO MRs 62

‎4.4 Information Kept by MRs about MANET‟s Gateways 71

‎4.5 The Sets of Parameters for Performance Analysis 76

‎4.6 Parameters Values for Numerical Analysis 77

‎5.1 Devices Information 93

‎5.2 Common Simulation Parameters 94

‎5.3 The Weight of Various Criteria in NEMO MRs and MANET

Gateways 99

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page No.

‎1.1 Estimated Number of Internet Users over the Last Two Decades 2

‎1.2 Network Mobility Basic Support Protocol 3

‎1.3 The Pinball Routing Problem in Nested NEMO 4

‎1.4 Mobile Ad Hoc Network 5

‎1.5 Mobile Ad Hoc NEMO (MANEMO) 6

1.6 Flowchart of the Research Methodology 12

2.1 Network Mobility 16

2.2 MANET with Multiple Gateways to the Internet 19

‎2.3 An Example of NEMO-Centric MANEMO (NCM) 20

‎2.4 An Example of MANET-Centric MANEMO (MCM) 21

‎2.5 Unified MANEMO Architecture 24

‎2.6 An Overview of eMANEMO System 25

‎2.7 An Overview of NAT-MANEMO 26

‎2.8 An Overview of Multihomed MANEMO 27

‎2.9 IETF Activities Related to MANEMO 29

‎2.10 IETF Activities Related to Neighbor Discovery for MANEMO 36

‎2.11 Network Loop 43

‎2.12 Un-optimized Route 44

3.1 The Variation in Packets Arrival Delay 52

‎4.1 Network Scenario 56

‎4.2 TIO Sub-options Generic Format for M-TDP 59

‎4.3 Internet Gateway Advertisement Message Format with Extra

Gateway Information Sub-option 60

‎4.4 Information Collected using M-NHDP and M-TDP 62

xiv

‎4.5 Broadcasting Gateway Request Massages in MANEMO 67

‎4.6 Signaling Flow When MANET GW is Selected by VMN 69

4.7 Signaling Flow When a MR is Selected by VMN through MANET

route 70

‎4.8 Signaling Flow When a MR is Selected by VMN 70

‎4.9 Pseudo Code of Gateway Selection by MN 71

‎4.10 Signaling Flow When MANET Connect to Internet through

NEMO‟s MR 72

‎4.11 Pseudo Codes for MANET Connectivity to Internet Using NEMO

Tree 72

‎4.12 Pseudo Codes for NEMO MR Connectivity to Global Internet via

MANET Gateway 73

‎4.13 Signaling Flow When NEMO Connects to Internet Through

MANET Gateway 74

‎4.14 Flowchart of the Gateway Selection Mechanism 75

4.51 The Path from the MN to the CN using MANET Gateway 78

‎4.16 The Path from the MN to the CN using NEMO Tree 80

‎4.17 The Path from the MN to the CN using MANET and NEMO Tree 82

4.18 Signaling Flow for MN Handover from a NEMO MR to Another

Using MANET Route 89

‎‎5.1 Summary of MGDSS Evaluation‟s Scenarios and Parameters 92

‎5.2 MANEMO with 15 MANET Nodes and 4 Nested-level NEMO 93

‎5.3 The Average End-to-end Delay of the Packet using Different

Gateway of MANEMO with Heavy Load 95

‎5.4 The Average TCP Delay using Different Gateway of MANEMO

with 30 MANET Nodes 96

‎5.5 The Average Wireless LAN Delay using Different Gateway of

MANEMO with Different Mobile Speed 97

‎5.6 The Average Ethernet Delay using Different Gateways of

MANEMO with 7 Nested-level NEMO 98

‎5.7 Average WLAN Dropped Data Packets in a Simple Scenario 100

xv

‎5.8 Average WLAN Delay in MANEMO with Fast Mobility 101

‎5.9 Average WLAN Throughput in MANEMO with Fast Mobility 102

‎5.10 Average WLAN Throughput in MANEMO with 30 MANET Nodes 103

‎5.11 Average HTTP Page Response Time in MANEMO with 30 MANET

Nodes 104

‎5.12 Average WLAN Data Packets Dropped in MANEMO with 7

Nested-level NEMO 105

‎5.13 Average Ethernet Delay in MANEMO with 7 Nested-level NEMO 106

‎5.14 Average End-to-end Delay of Voice Packet in MANEMO with a

Worse-case Scenario 107

5.15 Average Voice Jitter in MANEMO for a Worse-case Scenario 108

5.16 Packet End-to-end Delay with Increasing Number of MANET

Nodes, 2 Nested NEMO 109

‎5.17 Packet End-to-end Delay with Increasing Number of NEMO

Nesting-level and 30 MANET Nodes 109

‎5.18 Packets Delivery Overhead vs. Network Size 110

‎5.19 The Handover Delay in MANEMO of 4 nested-level And Different

Number of MANET Nodes 111

‎5.20 The Handover Delay in MANEMO of 30 MANET Nodes with

Different Nesting-level 112

II.1 NS-2 Architecture 133

II.2 GloMoSim Architecture 134

II.3 A Screenshot of QualNet Simulator 136

II.4 OPNET Architecture 137

II.5 Screenshot of the NetSim Interface 139

II.6 Screenshot of OMNET++ 140

‎‎

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

6LOWPAN IPv6 over Low power Wireless Personal Area Network

AODV Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector

AP Access Point

AR Access Router

ATM Asynchronous transfer mode

AUTOCONF Auto-Configuration

CLM Central Location Manager

CN Corresponding Node

CoA Care-of-Address

DSR Dynamic Source Routing

GloMoSim Global Mobile Information System Simulator

HA Home Agent

IGW Internet Gateway

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IETF Internet Engineering Task Force

IoT Internet of Things

IPv4 Internet Protocol version 4

IPv6 Internet Protocol version 6

LLM Local Location Manager

MANEMO Mobile Ad hoc for Network Mobility

MANET Mobile Ad hoc Network

MCM MANET-Centric MANEMO

xvii

MFS MANEMO Fringe Stub

MGDSS MANEMO Gateway Discovery and Selection Scheme

MIPv6 Mobile Internet Protocol version 6

MN Mobile Node

MNN Mobile Network Node

M-MANEMO Multihomed MANEMO

MR Mobile Router

NCM NEMO-Centric MANEMO

NDP Neighbor Discovery Protocol

NEMO Network mobility

NEMO BSP Network Mobility Basic Support Protocol

NEMO ES NEMO Extended Support

NERON NEst Route Optimization for NEMO

NHDP Neighborhood Discovery Protocol

NINA Network In Node Advertisement

OLSR Optimized Link State Routing

OPNET Optimized Network Engineering Tool

PAN Personal Area Network

RFC Request for Comments

RO Route Optimization

SEND SEcure Neighbor Discovery

SINEMO Seamless IP-diversity based NEtwork MObility

TCP Transmission Control Protocol

TDP Tree Discovery Protocol

TIO Tree Information Option

xviii

TTL Time to Live

UDP User Datagram Protocol

UMA Unified MANEMO Architecture

VANET Vehicle Ad hoc Network

VMN Visited Mobile Node

WLAN Wireless Local Area Network

WSN Wireless Sensor Network

ZRP Zone Routing Protocol

xix

LIST OF SYMBOLS

The sending rate of the GW advertisement message

The number of messages to discover the gateway

The overhead of the gateway discovery scheme

The delay in any connection throughout the Internet

The total delay in the MANET

The total delay in the NEMO

DP End-to-end Packet delay

The delay in any wired connection in the scenario

GWM The set of MANET gateways, where GWM = {0, …, GWM}

HC The hop count

M The set of MANET nodes, where M = {0, …,M}

N the set of NEMO MRs, where N = {0, …, N}

The total number of MANEMO gateways

S The number of active sources in the MANET

The time needed for binding update procedure

The total time needed to discover a MANET gateway

The total time for a MN handover from NEMO to MANET

The total time for a MN handover from MANET to NEMO

The time needed for IP security association and authentication

The time needed by a MR for link connectivity with the AR

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This thesis investigates recent works about MANET integration with NEMO to form

MANEMO topology and the open issues related to it. The main concern of this study

is to enhance the gateway discovery methods of the networks to support MANEMO

topology and select the optimum gateway when multiple gateways exist. It aims to

improve the performance of the whole network compared with the current research

work.

The first chapter of the thesis is giving a motivation and introducing the main

points of the research. Firstly, it presents a background about the research area and its

significance. Followed by stating the problem and highlighting the critical issues need

to be addressed. Then, the research questions, hypothesis and philosophy are

mentioned. This is followed by the research objectives. The methodology used to

achieve the objectives is highlighted, followed by the research scope. Lastly, the

organization of the whole thesis is pointed out.

1.2 BACKGROUND

The Internet users and applications around the world are increasing in number.

According to (Internet World Stats, 2016), 46.4% of the world populations nowadays

are using the Internet with dramatically growth in the users number as shown in

Figure 1.1. This is increasing the need of Internet resources and access points. This

2

creates challenges to the researchers in order to provide Internet connection anytime

and anywhere with continuous session connectivity of the wireless networks.

Figure 1.1Estimated number of Internet users over the last two decades (Source:

Internet World Stats, 2016)

Mobility is still one of the core fields of studies to keep the ongoing

connections while changing the access to the Internet. The Mobile IPv6 (Perkins et al.,

2011) protocol was designed to enable a single node‟s mobility using the same IPv6

address in different locations. But by time, the increasing use of Internet required the

same features for the entire network of IPv6‟s nodes. Therefore, a new IETF NEtwork

MObility Basic Support (NEMO BS) protocol was presented by Devarapalli et al.

(2005). This improves the network access in various scenarios such as the public

transport (i.e. trains, buses, planes, and ships), Personal Area Networks (PANs)

(Shuangming, 2016) and Vehicle Ad hoc Networks (VANETs) (Fadda, 2016). With

NEMO BS, the network‟s devices do not require any additional software or protocol

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Mill

ion

s o

f In

tern

et

use

rs

Years

3

supporting mobility. They are connected to a Mobile Router (MR) which deals with

different access networks while the network in move. Figure 1.2 shows the basic

operations of NEMO BS protocol.

Figure 1.2 NEtwork MObility Basic Support Protocol

The NEMO MR can transparently perform its mobility process on behalf of

any IPv6 enabled device and behaves as an IPv6 device at the network‟s connectivity

time. That enables the NEMO MRs to be connected together and access the Internet

through each other. When this situation occurs, the resulting network is known as a

Nested NEMO network (Ernst & Lach, 2007). However, the overall structure of the

Nested NEMO can become highly suboptimal with the possibility of generating loops

as well. The packets sent within the nested NEMO should go through MR-HA binding

tunnels of all the MRs they pass through. This process causes a highly inefficient

4

route from source to correspondent node which is known as Pinball Routing Problem

and it is shown in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 The pinball routing problem in nested NEMO

On the other hand, the Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) (Dearlove &

Clausen, 2015) supports mobility of the Mobile Hosts and Mobile Routers. This is by

using optimized routing protocols specially designed to operate between mobile

devices mainly to support network scenarios which have no former infrastructure.

Mainly, the MANET protocols were designed to maintain inter-connection between

the MANET devices but improved later to connect any nodes on the Internet. Figure

1.4 shows MANET topology.

5

Figure 1.4 Mobile Ad hoc Network topology

The integration of NEMO technology and MANETs known as (MANEMO)

(Mosa et al, 2011) can form scalable, global reachable, optimized network topologies.

With MANEMO, the optimized, multihop routing offered by MANET protocols can

be used to solve the inefficient routing problems experienced by Nested NEMO

configurations. On the other hand, the globally reachable Home Agent-based

properties of NEMO can be utilized to provide MANET networks with permanent

reachability to the Internet without flooding their routing information into the

infrastructure. According to McCarthy et al. (2007a) the mobile entity in MANEMO

is considered to be a MR, like the NEMO BS models. It manages the mobility of the

entire network and the connection with the Internet using its Egress interface.

Whereas, the Ingress interface present for the connection of the IP devices just like the

static networks. Figure 1.5 shows a scenario of MANEMO.

6

Figure 1.5 Mobile Ad Hoc NEMO

The MRs of the new topology should have interfaces to both MANET and

NEMO. And necessary modifications to the existing protocols are required like: IPv6,

Neighbor Discovery, and NEMO BSP to enable the MR in the Nested NEMO to find

the reachable access routers and select the most suitable exit towards the

infrastructure.

MANEMO should provide the. MANEMO also enables internal connectivity

within the nested NEMO whether the infrastructure is reachable or not. MANEMO is

not a simple integration of MANET and NEMO connected together. The MANEMO

suggests the development of a new protocol.

1.3 RESEARCH MOTIVATION

MANEMO can be used in emergency situations such as natural disaster like Tsunami

when the traditional communication systems massively destroyed. In these situations,