International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169

Volume: 5 Issue: 9 11 – 17
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Comparision study of MobileIPv4 and MobileIPv6

Dr. Sridevi
Assistant Professor,
Dept. of Computer Science,
Karnatak University,Dharwad

Abstract: IPv4 is being replaced by IPv6 due to the increased demand from mobility devices. However, it is necessary that there is a lack of
research on what change actually means for the performance of mobility. This research aims at comparing Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 in
terms of performance on latency, TCP/UDP throughput, and connectivity loss while roaming. Thus the study will explore the effects of the
future implementation of Mobile IPv6 for mobile devices.
Keywords: MobileIPv4, MobileIPv6, Mobile node, Home address, Care of Address etc...

__________________________________________________*****_________________________________________________

I. Introduction network is known as endpoint identifier. The endpoint

With standard IPv4 and IPv6 routing protocols, the IP identifier is called the mobile host’s home address (HoA).
address changes when a node connects to a new point of On the home network a HA is responsible for storing
access to the network. This will break the on-going TCP, information about the MNs that has a permanent home
UDP sessions. The internet traffic used today is TCP which address in its network. When the MN moves to a foreign
is defined by the combination of port number and IP address network a special last hop router, known as a foreign agent
on both sides of the established connection. When one of in MIPv4 and Access Router in MIPv6, informs about the
these four parts changes the connection will be lost and visiting mobile nodes in its network. However, it is still the
needs to be re-established. In order to avoid disruption and MN’s home agent that maintains its CoA and recognizes its
keep on-going TCP connection, the IP addresses and ports movements in a foreign network.
used during the TCP session should not be changed. Mobile
IP protocol was chosen by IETF to solve this problem. 2.1 Basic Operation of Mobile IPv4
Mobile IP provides the nodes with two IP addresses, the first Mobile IPv4 has three main parts that handle the mobility, a
is the home address and the second address is known as Home Agent, a Foreign Agent, and a Mobile Node. Every
care-of address that changes depending on the network it is MN in Mobile IPv4 has two IP addresses, a static home
connected to. Mobile IP is designed to work for IPv4 and address that is used to identify higher layer connections
IPv6. So far almost all mobile devices use Mobile IPv4. (e.g., TCP) and a care-of address which is used for routing
Today as the number of Mobile devices increase with purposes.
PDA’s, laptops, cellular phones, etc. the demands on When the MN is moving to a different foreign network,
internet are growing and the capacity of Mobile IPv4 is not CoA changes at every new foreign network. This is because
enough. In order to satisfy the increasing demands Mobile the CoA is located at the FA. When moving the MN sends a
IPv6 is meant to take over after Mobile IPv4. As it does so message to its HA which contains the binding between the
Mobile IPv6 is designed to be more efficient with a built in new CoA and the HoA. This procedure is known as home-
support for mobility. A lot of literature has described how to agent registration. During home agent registration the MN
implement a mobility network for IPv4 and IPv6 in maintains the binding between the HoA and the CoA at the
Linux/Unix environment. For Microsoft OS there is some home agent. Since the MN is registered with its home
information how to implement Mobile IPv6 using Windows network even when away from home, a correspondent node
XP with SP1. This study will use the physical deployments (CN) that sends packets to the MN will do so by sending
of Cisco equipments and Microsoft Windows 7 Professional them to the mobile node’s home address. Then the HA
OS to study the differences in performance between Mobile forwards the packets to the mobile node’s CoA, which is
IPv4 and Mobile IPv6. registered with the home agent.

II. Mobile IP Operation

Mobile IP has two different identifiers for the Mobile hosts,
a routing identifier and an endpoint identifier. The original
IP address assigned for the Mobile host when it is at home
11
IJRITCC | September 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 9 11 – 17
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
communicate with MN it can be done by one of two ways;
Bidirectional Tunneling or Route Optimization.

Figure 1: Operation of Mobile IPv4 Datagram Route.

Figure 2: Operation of Mobile IPv6 with Bidirectional
2.2 Basic Operation of Mobile IPv6 tunneling.
Similar to Mobile IPv4, Mobile IPv6 has three main parts
that handles the mobility, a Home Agent (HA), an Access III. Methodology
Router (AR), and a Mobile Node (MN). When the mobile The method that will be employed to study and compare the
node is within its home network, it is counted as a normal performance of MIPv4 and MIPv6 will be based on the
host when receiving and sending packets and communicates creation of two different scenarios, one with MIPv4
via standard IP routing mechanisms. If the mobile node configuration and another with MIPv6 configuration. The
changes location to a new network, it will have an additional tests will then consist of latency test, TCP and UDP tests to
IP address, a CoA that can be obtained through mechanisms measure throughput, loss, and delay as well checking the
such as Stateless auto-configuration or DHCPv6 (Dynamic connectivity between CN and MN while roaming from
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6). The communication foreign network to another.
process between HoA and CoA is called home-agent Test Environment: The Mobile IP topology that was used
binding update. When in a foreign network, the MN sends a in the test process consists of a HA, FA, CN and a MN in
binding update message to the home agent to register its MIPv4 and a HA, AR, CN and a MN in MIPv6
CoA. The HA answer with a binding acknowledgment. In Topology: The physical topology uses a Mobile network
this process all the nodes communicating with a MN are model, with four Cisco 2811 routers, Three routers are
called Correspondent Node. When communicating with CN connected through a switch and a fourth router acts as a MN
the MN sends the registration directly to CN, which is called and MR at the same time enabling mobility access to all its
correspondent registration. However if CN wants to connected hosts. Figure 3.5 shows the topology for MIPv4.

Figure 3: MIPv4 physical topology.

Figure 4 shows the route between CN and MN in MIPv4 topology.

Figure 4: MIPv4 traffic path from CN to MN.

12
IJRITCC | September 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 9 11 – 17
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
The topology will look the same when testing MIPv4 and with an Access Router (AR) in MIPv6. This is illustrated
MIPv6, only the Foreign Agent (FA) in MIPv4 is replaced below in Figure 5.

Figure 5: MIPv6 physical topology.

Figure 6 shows the route between CN and MN in MIPv6 topology

Figure 6: MIPv6 traffic path from MN to CN.

In addition, when doing the connectivity tests while roaming the connectivity loss while roaming the handover took place
a new router was added to work as a second FA in MIPv4, between FA and FA2 in MIPv4, and between AR and AR2
and as a second AR in MIPv6, as shown in Figure 7. To test in MIPv6.

Figure 7: MIPv4 and MIPv6 physical roaming topology

Router mobile configurations were used in both scenarios  MR Router with Mobile Router configuration
with MIPv4 and MIPv6 respectively. For the different which acts as a MN and MR at the same time
devices on the topology, the following configurations have (Cisco 2811).
been used for MIPv4: For MIPv6 the following configurations were used (see
 HA Router with Home Agent configuration (Cisco appendix 2):
2811).  HA Router with Home Agent NEMO
 FA Router with Foreign Agent configuration configuration (Cisco 2811).
(Cisco 2811).  CN-Rtr (R3) and AR Routers with basic IPv6
 CN-Rtr (R3) with Basic IPv4 configuration (Cisco configuration (Cisco 2811).
2811).  MR Router with Mobile Router NEMO
configuration which acts as a MN and MR at
the same time (Cisco 2811).
13
IJRITCC | September 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 9 11 – 17
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Since the tests are carried out in Microsoft Windows 7 MIPv4 on Cisco routers there is a route only to the home
environment the MNs are not MIPv4 and MIPv6 capable. address on the FA which, if no second tunnel was in place,
This is the reason for the fourth router acting as a MR as would create a routing loop as packets destined to the
well as MN, as seen in Figure 3 and Figure 5 above. One of mobile network would follow the standard routing and
the particularities of MIPv4 on Cisco Routers is that the return to the HA. To simplify the understanding of the
configuration will create a dual tunnel, one between the HA process, Figure 8 shows the output of show ip mobile tunnel,
and FA as well as another one inside the first one between where the IP 192.168.9.1 is the HA address.
the HA and MR. The dual tunnel is necessary because in

Figure 8: Dual tunnel on MIPv4.

Route optimization in MIPv6, which above has been sent, received and loss as well as approximate round trip
described as the feature that makes MIPv6 more efficient time.
than MIPv4, requires a MIPv6 capable CN. This is currently Different TCP tests were carried out between CN and MN to
not possible in a Microsoft Windows 7 environment as the measure data transfer and bandwidth in MIPv4 and MIPv6.
one used for the tests in this paper. Only in Windows XP The tests were done by using iperf. The tests that were
with service pack one, Windows CE .NET v4.2, or performed were the following:
Windows Mobile™ 2003-based embedded devices is the  TCP default test where the TCP default test
route optimization possible. However, it requires the access has a window size of 8 Kbytes (depends on
to the MS MIPv6 Tech Preview Network Protocol which is OS, 8 Kbytes in Windows 7 OS) and runs for
not available for public download. In addition, as Cisco 10 seconds.
routers for MIPv6 require NEMO configuration to  TCP with tuned window size of 24 Kbytes and
redistribute the Mobile Network, route optimization is not default time of 10 seconds.
supported. Thus, in this research, MIPv6 datagram have  TCP with tuned windows size of 64 Kbytes, 3
been routed via HA which is also the case in MIPv4. The minutes and a buffer length of 16000 Kbytes.
route process for MIPv6 is shown above in Figure 5. During these tests the MN acted as a server and the CN
IV. Results acted as a client. The iperf TCP tests measure data transfer
The tests that have been carried out aim at measuring the and throughput. The following tests were used:
performance of the MIPv4 and MIPv6 networks in Cisco
Router environment. The tests measure the latency, TCP 4.1 TCP Throughput
throughput, UDP throughput, loss, and delay and the Three different TCP tests were carried out between CN and
connectivity loss between CN and MN while roaming from MN to measure data transfer and throughput in MIPv4 and
foreign network to another foreign network. MIPv6. The test results for MIPv4 and MIPv6 are show
The latency tests were done by using Ping utility between below in tables 2 and 3 starting with the results for the TCP
CN and the MN. The tests were carried out 5 times in both default test
MIPv4 and MIPv6 scenarios in order to measure packets

14
IJRITCC | September 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 9 11 – 17
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 2: MIPv4 TCP default tests Table 3: MIPv6 TCP default tests

60 TCP Default test

40
MIPv4
20
MIPv6
0
Min Max Avg

Figure 9: TCP Default test

The second test of the TCP throughput with tuned window size 24 Kbytes is shown in Tables 4 and 5 below.

Table 4: MIPv4 TCP test with tuned window size 24Kbytes. Table 5: MIPv6 TCP test with tuned window size 24Kbytes

TCP test with tuned window size 24Kbytes

100
50 MIPv4
0 MIPv6
Min Max AVG

Figure 10: TCP test with tuned window size 24Kbytes

Table 6 and Table 7 show the results of the third TCP test running for 3 minutes with 64 Kbytes window size and buffer length of
16000 Kbytes.

15
IJRITCC | September 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 9 11 – 17
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 6: MIPv4 TCP test. Table 7: MIPv6 TCP test

When comparing MIPv4 with MIPv6 in each of the three tests show that MIPv6 transfers 1.89 Gbytes of data and
different tests, the results showed that MIPv6 performed MIPv4 1.19 Gbytes during three minutes. When it comes to
better in all tests. For this reason, only the results for the last throughput, MIPv6 had 91.3 Mbits/sec and MIPv4 56.9
test are presented here to compare MIPv4 and MIPv6 Mbits/sec. Thus, as both of these comparisons illustrate,
(Figure 10 and Figure 11 below). The results for the TCP MIPv6 transferred more data and at faster speed.

Figure 10: Data transfer with tuned TCP Figure 11: Throughput with tuned TCP
window size 64kbytes during 3 minutes. TCP window size 64kbytes during 3 minutes.
4.2 Ping Tests 1ms minimum and maximum and thus the average was 1ms
Ping tests showed that, in both scenarios the packet sent and as well. The Table 8 below shows the results of MIPv4
received were equal and thus there was no packet loss. round trip time.
When it comes to approximate round trip time, MIPv4 had

Table 8: MIPv4 Ping tests round trip times in mili seconds. Table 9: MIPv6 Ping tests round trip times in mili seconds.

MIPv4 had 1ms minimum and maximum and thus the that time taken for round trip which is based on the five tests
average was 1ms as well, shown in Table 9. showed that the difference was not so big but MIPv6 was
The Figure 12 shows a comparison between MIPv4 and faster than MIPv4.
MIPv6 of the approximate round trip time in ms. notice,

16
IJRITCC | September 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication ISSN: 2321-8169
Volume: 5 Issue: 9 11 – 17
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 12: MIPv4 and MIPv6 round trip times in milli-seconds.

V. Conclusion References
After all tests were done and reviewed, the results showed [1] T. Narten, E. Nordmark, W. Simpson, and H. Soliman,
that the MIPv6 had better performance than MIPv6. When it “Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)." RFC 4861
comes to latency, MIPv4 had less latency than MIPv6. In (Draft Standard), Sept. 2007.
[2] S. Thomson, T. Narten, and T. Jinmei, “IPv6 Stateless
TCP tests, we can notice a big difference between MIPv4
Address Autoconconfiguration" RFC 4862 (Draft
and MIPv6 in the datagram transferred. In addition the UDP
Standard), Sept. 2007.
tests showed that MIPv6 had better performance than MIPv4 [3] R. Wakikawa, V. Devarapalli, G. Tsirtsis, T. Ernst, and K.
in particular concerning jitter and packet loss. Nagami, “Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration." RFC
An advantage with MIPv6 is that it has mobility built in not 5648 (Proposed Standard), Oct.2009.
in extensions as with MIPv4. MIPv6 does not require a [4] M.-S. Hwang, C.-C. Lee, and S.-K. Chong, “An improved
special router to act as foreign agent which is needed for address ownership in mobile IPv6," Computer
MIPv4. The most important advantage of MIPv6 is that it Communications, vol. 31, no. 14, pp. 3250-3252,2008.
has route optimization which allows the traffic to travel [5] G. Anastasi, M. Conti, E. Gregori, and A. Passarella,
“802.11 power-saving mode for mobile computing in wi-fi
directly between CN and MN without passing through HA.
hotspots: limitations, enhancements and open issues,"
This comparative study of MIPv4 and MIPv6 has shown
Wireless Netw., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 745-768, 2008.
that MIPv6 performs better than MIPv4 in latency, [6] V. Nuorvala and A. J. Tuominen, “UMIP - Mobile IPv6
TCP/UDP throughput The TCP tests showed that MIPv6 and NEMO for Linux,” April 2013.
performed better than MIPv4. This can be illustrated by the
TCP default test where MIPv6 had a throughput of 45,6
Mbits/sec compared to 26,7 Mbits/sec for MIPv4. In the
tests of UDP datagram loss MIPv6 had 1,58 percent
datagram loss while MIPv4 had 6,68 percent, thus again
demonstrating MIPv6 superiority in this study.

17
IJRITCC | September 2017, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________