Ipv6 and lte futuristic technology for wireless broadband

Research Paper

IPV6 and LTE: Futuristic Technology for Wireless Broadband

Submitting To

6th International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Technologies

By

V.Sasank Chaitanya KumarB.Tech

Network EngineerReliance Communications Ltd.

Under the Guidance of

Abhay Kumar Shukla

Research Scholar

General Manager

Reliance Communications Ltd.

1 | P a g e


Table of Contents

Sr. No. Contents Page No.

1 Abstract 2

2Introduction

3

3 4Problem Statement

4

Methodology of the Study

4.1.1 A brief history of the Flow Label 4.2.1 IPV6 Flow Label4.2.2 The Flow Label and Quality of Service4.2.3 IPv6 Flow Label Specification4.2.4 IPV6 Flow Label Field description4.2.5 End-to-End QoS Mechanism4.3.1 LTE evolution4.3.2 LTE Architecture4.4 IPV6 and LTE: Putting the pieces together4.5 The Expected graph’s of proposed Flow label

5-20

5Key Findings and Conclusion

21

6 22Related work and Comparisons

7 References 23

2 | P a g e


1. Abstract

With the exponential rise in the number of multimedia applications available, the best-effort service provided by the Internet today is insufficient. Researchers have been working on new architectures like the Next Generation Network (NGN) which, by definition, will ensure Quality of Service (QoS) in an all-IP based network.

IPv6 as IP next generation is the successor to IPv4. IPv6 solves the shortcomings problem of IPv4 address, Flow label field in IPv6 packet header provides an efficient way for packet marking, flow identification, and flow state lookup.

This paper provides the design for IPv6 Flow Label field it will explain the requirements for IPv6 source node labeling flows, IPv6 nodes forwarding labeled packets etc… and this paper further provides to use the power of LTE (Long Term Evolution) as an NSP (Network Service Provider) using IPv6, It gives basic terminologies, key concepts, short introduction to such definitions / Specifications / standards and Test Setups used to run such complex communication networks.

Finally, I provide the estimated results which show the performance of the proposed mechanism is maintained during network congestion using Flow Label (FL) field of IPV6.

3 | P a g e


2. Introduction

The traditional Internet as designed in the early 1970s was aimed primarily for packet transmission over

a switched network. Delay, latency, bandwidth, packet loss and jitter on the networks were factors that

were not considered to be of much importance when the initial simple networks were built. Due to the

complexity of present day applications and communication needs, the above factors which influence the

quality of communications bear a lot of significance.

Various efforts have been made is the past to introduce mechanisms to request, control and provide for

the requested quality of service over the Internet. In the context of this work Quality of Service refers to

the ability of the network provider or the network by itself to provide certain guarantees for the

transmission of the requestors’ traffic. This would eventually change the traditional Internets’ best-effort

service model to a controlled and regulated effort service model.

Multimedia applications on the Internet like triple play services( VoIP and Video on Demand ) require

guaranteed QoS which the current best-effort service cannot provide . IPv4 (Internet Protocol) has no

policing or flow control mechanisms.

IPv6 has been in the design and testing for many years, now when the Internet designers realized that the

community will run out of IP addresses soon under IPv4. IPv6 is a solution as it provides 2128 different

IP addresses which are way more than ever required. Another point to consider is that, in IPv4, features

to provide labeling of packets have not been implemented. The IPv6 header has two fields, TC and FL,

which can be used to make QoS requests and get accurate responses. This results in reduction in

processing time and routing is also simplified.

Seamless connectivity to the Internet with guaranteed QoS is the demand of today. Any user who is

fixed or mobile should be able to access the Internet irrespective of speed and location LTE (Long Term

Evolution) is a telecommunications technology that provides wireless internet access. It is a packet-

based i.e. an end-to-end all-IP technology which ensures that QoS is guaranteed.

Keywords: IPV6, Flow Label, End-to-End QoS and LTE.

4 | P a g e


3. Problem Statement

Traditionally, flow classifiers have been based on the 5-tuple of the source and destination addresses,

ports, and the transport protocol type (IPV4). The usage of the 3-tuple of the Flow Label and the Source

and Destination Address fields enables efficient IPv6 flow classification.

Various proposals have been made to the IETF to define the 20 bits of the flow label field in the IPv6

header. These proposals have been made in the form of IETF drafts which are reviewed by the IETF

IPv6 working group. The IETF IPv6 working group reviews the drafts and if the proposals meet the

criteria, then they are converted to IETF standards. So far none of the proposals have been accepted for

standardization by the IETF.

This paper specifies the IPv6 Flow Label field and the requirements for IPv6 nodes labeling flows, IPv6

nodes forwarding labeled packets, and flow state establishment methods.

There has been a rapid increase in the use of data carried by cellular services, and this increase will only

become larger in what has been termed the "data explosion". To cater for this and the increased demands

for increased data transmission speeds and lower latency, further development of cellular technology

have been required.

The UMTS cellular technology upgrade has been dubbed LTE - Long Term Evolution. The idea is that

3G LTE will enable much higher speeds to be achieved along with much lower packet latency (a

growing requirement for many services these days), and that 3GPP LTE will enable cellular

communications services to move forward to meet the needs for cellular technology.

This paper gives short introduction to LTE and discuss its definitions / Specifications / standards, Test

Setups and data flow in this communication technology.

5 | P a g e


4. Methodology of the Study

4.1.1 A Brief History of the Flow Label

The original proposal for a flow label has been attributed to Dave Clark [Deering93], who proposed that

it should contain a pseudorandom value. A Flow Label field was included in the packet header during

the preliminary design of IPv6, which followed an intense period of debate about several competing

proposals. The final choice was made in 1994 [RFC1752]. In particular, the IETF rejected a

Proposal known as the Common Architecture for Next Generation Internet Protocol (CATNIP)

[RFC1707], which included so-called ’cache handles’ to identify the next hop in high-performance

routers. Thus, CATNIP introduced the notion of a header field that would be share by all packets

belonging to a flow, to control packet forwarding on a hop-by-hop basis. We recognize this today as a

precursor of the MPLS label [RFC3031].

The IETF decided instead to develop a proposal known as the Simple Internet Protocol plus (SIPP)

[RFC1710] into IP version 6. SIPP included "labeling of packets belonging to particular traffic ’flows’

for which the sender requests special handling, such as non-default quality of service or ’real-time’

service" [RFC1710]. In 1994, this used a 28-bit Flow Label field. In 1995, it was down to 24 bits

[RFC1883], and it was finally reduced to 20 bits [RFC2460] to accommodate the IPv6 Traffic Class,

which is fully compatible with the IPv4 Type of Service byte.

There was considerable debate in the IETF about the very purpose of the flow label. Was it to be a

handle for fast switching, as in CATNIP, or was it to be meaningful to applications and used to

specify quality of service? Must it be set by the sending host, or could it be set by routers? Could it be

modified en route, or must it be delivered with no change?

Because of these uncertainties, and more urgent work, the flow label was consistently ignored by

implementers, and today is set to zero in almost every IPv6 packet. In fact, [RFC2460] defined it as

6 | P a g e


"experimental and subject to change". There was considerable preliminary work, such as [Metzler00],

[Conta01a], [Conta01b], and [Hagino01]. The ensuing proposed standard "IPv6 Flow Label

Specification" (RFC 3697) [RFC3697] intended to clarify this situation by providing precise boundary

conditions for use of the flow label. However, this has not proved successful in promoting use of the

flow label in practice, as a result of which 20 bits are unused in every IPv6 packet header.

4.2.1 IPv6 Flow Label:

The IPv6 header includes a 20 bit field called the Flow Label field which adds flow labeling capability

for IPv6. The flow label field enables an IPv6 enabled host to label a sequence of packets for which the

host requests special handling by the IPv6 routers [RFC2460]. This enables the host to request non-

default quality of service from the IPv6 network

Fig (1): The above figure shows packet header differences between IPV4 packet and IPV6 packet

4.2.2 The Flow Label and Quality of Service

Developments in high-speed switch design, and the success of MPLS, have largely obviated

consideration of the flow label for high-speed switching. Thus, although various use cases for the flow

label have been proposed, most of them assume that it should be used principally to support the

provision of quality of service (QoS). For many years, it has been recognized that real-time Internet

7 | P a g e


traffic requires a different QoS from general data traffic, and this remains true in the era of network

neutrality. Thus, an alternative to uniform best-effort service is needed, requiring packets to be

Classified as belonging to a particular class of service or flow. Currently, this leads to a layer violation

problem, since a 5-tuple is often used to classify each packet. The 5-tuple includes source and

destination addresses, port numbers, and the transport protocol type, so when we want to forward or

process packets, we need to extract information from the layer above IP. This may be impossible

when packets are encrypted such that port numbers are hidden, or when packets are fragmented, so the

layer violation is not an academic concern. The flow label, being exempt from IPSec encryption and

being replicated in packet fragments, avoids this difficulty. It has therefore attracted attention from the

designers of new approaches to QoS.

4.2.3 IPv6 Flow Label Specification

Standardized specification for the IPv6 flow label field. A summary of the specification as listed in

[RFC3697][RFC 6437] [RFC6294]is as follows :

1. The IPv6 20 bit flow label field is used by a source to label packets of a flow

2. Packets not belonging to any flow are labeled with a flow label value of zero

3. The triplet value of the Flow Label, Source Address, and Destination Address fields is used by the

packet classifiers to identify a particular packets’ flow

4. The Flow Label value set by the source MUST be delivered unchanged to the destination node(s).

5. The performance of the IPv6 routers should not depend on the distribution of the flow label values

and no mathematical or other properties should be assumed based on the flow label values

6. The flow State lifetime is 120 seconds and packets arriving with the same flow label value after

120 seconds should not be treated as belonging to the same old flow unless either the flow state has been

explicitly refreshed within the lifetime duration or the duration is explicitly specified to be a value other

than 120 seconds

8 | P a g e


7. An IPv6 node that is not participating in the flow-specific treatment process must ignore the flow

label field when receiving or forwarding a packet

8. Accidental Flow Label value reuse must be avoided by providing for sequential or pseudo-random

generation of new flow values

9. In case of multicast sessions the destination may need to specify the Flow Label value to be used by

the sources

4.2.4 IPV6 Flow Label Field description

After reading all the given specifications in RFC’s Firstly, 20-bit flow label field in the IPv6 packet

header is divided into three parts detailed list as shown in figure 2. The first bit Label Flag (LF) set to 1

if flow label used. The 2-bit Label Type (LT) is the type of flow label. The rest of 17-bit Label Number

(LN) is randomly generated by source for flow identification.

LF(1) LT (2) LN(17)

Fig. 2: The proposed flow label field in IPv6 packet header

LF (Flow Label), LT (Label Type), LN-(Label number)

Table 1: the above table Describes the fields of Flow Label

9 | P a g e


4.2.5 End-to-End QoS Mechanism

Some routers supporting flow label and DiffServ function (with Flow-Label-and- DiffServ capable)have assumed according to the network topology show below.

Fig (3): The above figure shows proposed E-2-E architecture to explain the functionality of Flow Label

Let us assume there should be a marking table at each and every router In the network to maintain the

flow I.E., FLMT (Flow Label Marking Table) records Permit, 3- tuple of the flow label and the source

and destination address, and TOS data for different kind of flow classification.

We will consider one example to explain the operation of Flow Label and its field’s. Let us assume user

on PC-0 wants to communicate with the user on PC-3.

10 | P a g e


Initially PC-0 generates a random number (LN), PC-0 generates a random number based on

application and port number .Now PC-0 will frame a Flow Label for connection request with the

remote host as [LF-1, LN-01, LN-RAND] using this fields upper layer protocol stack sends a packet

to Edge router(Gate way). Edge router will open IP packet see the destination address, if the router

has forwarding route, router will consider packet it will open Flow label field refer LN, if LN is

unique router will make a record of 3-tuple and TOS in FLMT. If not router will reply host (PC-0)

with an ICMP message requesting new LN for request message. Finally Edge router check’s LF,LT

and LN of Flow Label field like gate way. Now it will select next hop [with Flow- Label-and-

DiffServ capable] from the routing table.

When a core router in network receives an IP packet it will create an entry in a FLMT and forward

the packet finally packet reaches PC-3.

Now PC-3 on other side of the network receive a packet and modify the Flow Label sends a permit

response with LF-1, LT-01 and LN-RAND along the same path to PC-0. It completes the

authentication process.

A Data connection establishes after permitting the request from remote end. PC-0 will modify its

FL with LF-1, LT-10 and LN-RAND to deliver the data and insert the related TOS to the traffic

class field of IPV6 header and sends the packet. When an Edge router receives an IP packet, Router

will open IP packet and make a recursive look up with FLMT, classify the packet and forward the

packet till end.

Once the forwarding of data is completed by source, PC-0 will modify its Flow label value to LF-1,

LT-11and LN-RAND. And send the packet to Edge router. Now gate way (Edge router) and can

delete the matching LN entry respectively.

The proposed mechanism presented in this paper improves the end-to-end QOS provision and also

reduces the load on routers.

11 | P a g e


4.3 Long Term Evolution (LTE)

4.3.1 LTE evolution

Although there are major step changes between LTE and its 3G predecessors, it is nevertheless looked

upon as an evolution of the UMTS / 3GPP 3G standards. Although it uses a different form of radio

interface, using OFDMA / SC-FDMA instead of CDMA, there are many similarities with the earlier

forms of 3G architecture and there is scope for much re-use.

LTE can be seen for provide a further evolution of functionality, increased speeds and general improved

performance.

Parameters WCDMA(UMTS)

HSPAHSDPA / HSUPA

HSPA+ LTE

Max downlink speedbps

384 k 14 M 28 M 100M

Max uplink speedbps

128 k 5.7 M 11 M 50 M

Latencyround trip timeapprox

150 ms 100 ms 50ms (max) ~10 ms

3GPP releases Rel 99/4 Rel 5 / 6 Rel 7 Rel 8 Approx years of initial roll out

2003 / 4 2005 / 6 HSDPA2007 / 8 HSUPA

2008 / 9 2009 / 10

Access methodology CDMA CDMA CDMA OFDMA / SC-FDMA

Table (2) Comparison with previous technologies

In addition to this, LTE is an all IP based network, supporting both IPv4 and IPv6. There is also no basic

provision for voice, although this can be carried as VoIP.

12 | P a g e


4.3.2 LTE Architecture

Figure (4): the above figure shows LTE generalized architecture

LTE Network Elements

LTE network comprises of two main segments.

1. LTE EUTRAN

2. LTE-SAE Evolved Packet Core.

13 | P a g e


LTE EUTRAN: -

EUTRAN consists of eNB.

EUTRAN is responsible for complete radio management in LTE. When UE comes up eNB is

responsible for Radio Resource Management, i.e it shall do the radio bearer control, radio admission

control, allocation of uplink and downlink to UE etc. When a packet from UE arrives to eNB, eNB shall

compress the IP header and encrypt the data stream. It is also responsible for adding a GTP-U header to

the payload and sending it to the SGW. Before the data is actually transmitted the control plane has to be

established. eNB is responsible for choosing a MME using MME selection function.

As the eNB is only entity on radio side, the whole QoS is taken care by it. It shall mark the packetsin

uplink, i.e Diffserv based on QCI, and also schedule the data. Other functionalities include scheduling

and transmission of paging messages, broadcast messages, and bearer level rate enforcements based on

UE-AMBR and MBR etc.

LTE System Architecture Evolution (SAE) Evolved Packet Core (EPC)

LTE EPC comprises of MME, SGW and PGW.

MME: - Mobility Management Entity

MME is a control entity, which means it’s completely responsible for all the control plane operations.

All the NAS signaling originates at UE and terminates in MME. MME does tracking area list

management, selection of PGW/SGW and also selection of other MME during handovers.

It is the first contact point for the 2G and 3G networks. MME is also responsible for SGSN selection

during LTE to 2G/3G handovers.

14 | P a g e


The UE is also authenticated by MME. All signaling traffic flow through MME so the same can lawfully

intercepted. MME is also responsible for bearer management functions including establishment of

dedicated bearers.

SGW: - Serving Gateway

The Serving Gateway, SGW, is a data plane element within the LTE SAE. Its main purpose is to

manage the user plane mobility and it also acts as the main border between the Radio Access Network,

RAN and the core network. The SGW also maintains the data paths between the eNodeBs and the PDN

Gateways. In this way the SGW forms a interface for the data packet network at the E-UTRAN.

Also when UEs move across areas served by different eNodeBs, the SGW serves as a mobility anchor

ensuring that the data path is maintained.

PGW: - PDN Gateway

PGW terminates SGi interface towards the PDN.

PGW is responsible for all the IP packet based operations such as deep packet inspection, UE IP address

allocation, Transport level packet marking in uplink and downlink, accounting etc. PGW contacts PCRF

to determine the QoS for bearers. It is also responsible for UL and DL rate enforcement based on APN-

AMBR. It is synonymous to GGSN of pre release 8 networks.

Policy and Charging Rules Function, PCRF: This is the generic name for the entity within the

LTE SAE EPC which detects the service flow, enforces charging policy. For applications that

require dynamic policy or charging control, a network element entitled the Applications

Function, AF is used.

LTE Radio Network

LTE Physical Layer

LTE physical layer is quite complex and consists of mixture of technologies. With OFDMA as access

technology, QAM as modulation scheme and multiple antennas we can achieve high speeds.

15 | P a g e


QAM: - Quadrature Amplitude Modulation

Going back to engineering basics, we have a simple modulation scheme called PSK. Phase shift keying,

which is analog to digital modulation scheme (transmitter side). In PSK we have 1 bit per symbol .0 and

1. Each bit is associated with a Phase shift. With 4 Phase shifts we can transmit 2 bits per symbol. As

with 64 QAM we shall be able to transmit 6 bits per symbol. If we look at this scheme in the given

bandwidth, by changing the modulation scheme, we are able to transmit more and more bits. This is

resulting in increase of data rates.

Looking at Shannon's theorem:

As I said above, changing the modulation scheme gives us more throughputs. However high modulation

schemes can be only be used when the signal to noise ratio is high. From above theorem, channel

capacity is bandwidth multiplied by logarithm of SNR. Higher the SNR higher is the channel capacity,

which means more throughputs.

Second factor that increases channel capacity is bandwidth. Now bandwidth is directly proportional to

symbol rate. Higher the symbol rate then higher is the bandwidth. But again, increasing the symbol rate

doesn't increase the channel efficiency as channel bandwidth is fixed because available spectrum is

finite. So there is a tradeoff between symbol rate and channel throughput. The basic idea is keeping on

increasing the symbol rate (modulation scheme) doesn't always improve the efficiency. So considering

these factors 64 QAM should be a suitable choice for LTE.

OFDM: - Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing

Consider we have X amount of spectrum. This can be divided into channels of each Y amount of

bandwidth. Each channel is separated by Guard band to avoid interference. This is basic idea in

normal multiplexing schemes. In CDMA we identify each channel by a code. So what is happening

is we have equally spaced channels occupying the entire bandwidth. Note that these channels are

non-overlapping. Each channel has a subcarrier.

16 | P a g e


Figure (5): FDMA

With OFDM systems, it is possible to increase throughput in a given channel without increasing

channel bandwidth or the order of the modulation scheme. This is done using digital signal

processing methods that enable a single channel to be created out of a series of orthogonal

subcarriers. As below figure illustrates, subcarriers are orthogonal to one another such that the

maximum power of each subcarrier corresponds with the minimum power (zero-crossing point) of

the adjacent subcarrier. In a typical system, the bit stream for a channel is multiplexed across various

subcarriers. These subcarriers are processed with an inverse Fourier transform (IFT) and combined

into a single stream. As a result, multiple streams can be transmitted in parallel while preserving the

relative phase and frequency relationship between them.

Figure (6): OFDMA

This way we can include more number of subcarriers in a given bandwidth thus increasing the overall

system throughput.

17 | P a g e


MIMO: - Multiple Input Multiple Output

The Shannon's theorem above is assumed to have 1 transmitter and 1 receiver antenna. If we

consider multiple antennas then the theorem could be modified as

Thus in theory increasing the antennas will effectively increase the channel capacity without any change

in available bandwidth. Now what we can do with MIMO is increase SNR by transmitting a unique bit

stream using multiple antennas in the same channel. This is called Spatial Multiplexing. With MIMO

systems, the bit stream is multiplexed to multiple transmitters without changing the symbol rate of each

independent transmitter. Thus, by adding more transmitters, we can increase the throughput of the

system without affecting the channel bandwidth.

Thus the combination of OFDMA, MIMO and QAM will give us more bandwidth and higher data

rates in LTE.

The main interfaces in LTE are Uu, S1-MME, X2, S1-U, S11 and S5.

LTE Uu: -

This is the air interface between UE and eNB. LTE layer 1 is dealt with later. RRC is the protocol that is used for communication between UE and eNB. Above RRC there is a NAS layer in UE. This NAS layer terminates at MME and eNB shall silently pass the NAS messages to MME.

LTE S1-MME: -

eNB and MME communicate using this IP interface. S1-AP is application layer interface. The transport protocols used here is SCTP. (Stream control transmission protocol)

LTE X2: -

This interface is used by a eNB to communicate to other eNB. This again is a IP interface with SCTP as

transport. X2-AP is the application protocol used by eNB’s to communicate.

LTE S11: -

An IP interface between MME and SGW! GTPv2 is the protocols used at the application layer. GTPv2 runs on UDP transport. This interface must and should run GTPv2.

18 | P a g e


LTE S5: -

This is the interface between SGW and PGW. This again is an IP interface and has two variants. S5 can be a GTP interface or PMIP interface. PMIP variant is used to support non-trusted 3GPP network access.

LTE S1-U: -

User plane interface between eNB and SGW! GTP-U v1 is the application protocol that encapsulates the UE payload. GTP-U runs on UDP.

All the above IP interfaces can be of IPv4 or IPv6. Few interfaces can be of IPv4 and few can be of

IPv6. From the specification side there are no restrictions.

4.4 IPV6 and LTE: Putting the pieces together

As we all aware LTE is totally packet switching based technology I.e., E-2-E IP communication.IPv6 as

IP next generation is the successor to IPv4. IPv6 solves the shortcomings problem of IPv4 address, so

we can assign an individual IP to each and every UE. This reduces a delay in E2E communication. As

UE no need to request DHCP to give an IP.

In LTE technology TFT (Traffic flow template) and bearers are responsible for E-2-E communication.

Typically TFT includes the information about the type of traffic. TFT indicates IP header information

such as an IP address or TCP/UDP port numbers etc. Instead of creating an individual TFT we can use

FLMT which includes information about 3-tuple and Qos which can perform dual functions.

1. To classify the data as mentioned in end to end Qos mechanism which helps for achieving

better through put and overall delay.

2. Which helps in achieving dedicated bearer to the UE

19 | P a g e


4.5 The Expected graph’s of proposed Flow label

Fig. 7: The TCP Flow (throughput v.s. time)

Fig. 8: The UDP Flow (throughput v.s. time)

4.5.1 LTE (Long term Evolution):

If we compare round trip delay of LTE with other technologies latency has levels of interaction being required and much faster responses, the new SAE concepts have been evolved to ensure that the levels of latency have been reduceusing 3G LTE will be sufficiently responsive.

Figure (9): The above figure shows the comparison of

Figure (10): The above figure shows the comparison of


If we compare round trip delay of LTE with other technologies latency has decreased. Withlevels of interaction being required and much faster responses, the new SAE concepts have been evolved to ensure that the levels of latency have been reduced to around 10 ms. this will ensure that applications using 3G LTE will be sufficiently responsive.

): The above figure shows the comparison of round trip delays of different echnologies.

): The above figure shows the comparison of data rates offered by different technologies

20 | P a g e

LTE: Futuristic Technology for Wireless Broadband

decreased. With increased levels of interaction being required and much faster responses, the new SAE concepts have been evolved

d to around 10 ms. this will ensure that applications

round trip delays of different echnologies.

data rates offered by different technologies

21 | P a g e


5 Key Findings and Conclusion

In this paper, my proposal to use the 20 bit Flow Label field in the IPv6 protocol header has been

discussed. As an outcome, I hope an efficient approach has been proposed which utilizes the 20 bits of

the Flow Label field to indicate Quality of Service requirements to the network and i gave basics to

understand about LTE technology. Finally discussed IPV6 and LTE putting the pieces together.

6 RELATED WORK AND COMPARISONS:

Other Papers My paper

‘RFC3697’,’RFC6294’

By

IETF-

Specifies ways which the flow label can be

defined

Gives a definite explanation of Flow label

usage with justification

End -to-End Qos Provisioning by Flow Label

in IPV6 using FLMT and FLFT

By

Chuan-Neng Lin, Pei-Chen Tseng, and Wen-

Shyang Hwang.

Provides End -to-End Qos Provisioning by

Flow Label in IPV6 using FLMT only

NGN and Wimax : Putting the pieces together

By

Team ‘NETworthy’- Khaled Abdel Naby (3363685) & Chetan Govind Bhatia (3554260), MITM, UOWD, UAE

My paper says IPV6 and LTE: Futuristic technology for Wireless Broadband

22 | P a g e


REFERENCES:

[1] S. Deering, R. Hinden, “Internet Protocol, version 6”, IETF Network Working Group RFC 2460, 1998.

[2] S. Amante, B. Carpenter, S. Jiang, J. Rajahalme “ IPv6 Flow Label Specification” ”, IETF Network Working Group RFC 6437, 2011.

[3] Chuan-Neng Lin, Pei-Chen Tseng, and Wen-Shyang Hwang.” End-to-End QoS Provisioning Flow Label in IPv6”

[4] Khaled Abdel Naby & Chetan Govind Bhatia” NGN and WiMAX: Putting the Pieces Together”,2011.

[5] Santosh Kumar Dornal “LTE Whitepaper “2009.

[6] 4G Americas White Paper New_Wireless_Broadband_Applications_and_Devices May 2012.

Ipv6 and lte futuristic technology for wireless broadband

Documents

Transcript of Ipv6 and lte futuristic technology for wireless broadband