74

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

Performance Analysis of PMIPv6-Based NEtwork

MObility for Intelligent Transportation Systems
Jong-Hyouk Lee, Thierry Ernst, and Naveen Chilamkurti

AbstractWhile host mobility support for individual mobile

hosts (MHs) has been widely investigated and developed over the
past years, there has been relatively less attention to NEtwork
MObility (NEMO). Since NEMO Basic Support (NEMO-BS) was
developed, it has been the central pillar in Intelligent Transport
Systems (ITS) communication architectures for maintaining the
vehicles Internet connectivity. As the vehicle moves around, it
attaches to a new access network and is required to register a
new address obtained from the new access network to a home
agent (HA). This location update of NEMO-BS often results in
unacceptable long handover latency and increased traffic load to
the vehicle. To address these issues, in this paper, we introduce
new NEMO support protocols, which rely on mobility service provisioning entities introduced in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6), as
possible mobility support protocols for ITS. As a base protocol, we
present PMIPv6-based NEMO (P-NEMO) to maintain the vehicles Internet connectivity while moving and without participating
in the location update management. In P-NEMO, the mobility
management for the vehicle is supported by mobility service provisioning entities residing in a given PMIPv6 domain. To further improve handover performance, fast P-NEMO (FP-NEMO) has been
developed as an extension protocol. FP-NEMO utilizes wireless L2
events to anticipate the vehicles handovers. The mobility service
provisioning entities prepare the vehicles handover prior to the
attachment of the vehicle to the new access network. Detailed
handover procedures for P-NEMO and FP-NEMO are provided,
and handover timing diagrams are presented to evaluate the performance of the proposed protocols. P-NEMO and FP-NEMO are
compared with NEMO-BS in terms of traffic cost and handover
latency.
Index TermsFast PMIPv6-based NEMO (FP-NEMO), intelligent transport systems (ITSs), NEMO Basic Support (NEMO-BS),
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6), PMIPv6-based NEMO (P-NEMO).

I. I NTRODUCTION

HE Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has specified a number of mobility support protocols for nextgeneration wireless mobile networks. IETF mobility support
protocols, i.e., Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [1], Hierarchical Mobile
IPv6 (HMIPv6) [2], and Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) [3], have
Manuscript received January 15, 2011; revised April 11, 2011; accepted
April 22, 2011. Date of publication May 27, 2011; date of current version
January 20, 2012. The review of this paper was coordinated by Dr. A. Vinel.
J.-H. Lee is with the French National Institute for Research in Computer
Science and Control (INRIA), Rocquencourt, France (e-mail: jong-hyouk.lee@
inria.fr).
T. Ernst is with the French National Institute for Research in Computer
Science and Control (INRIA), Rocquencourt, France, and Mines ParisTech,
Paris, France (e-mail: thierry.ernst@inria.fr).
N. Chilamkurti is with La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic. 3086, Australia
(e-mail: n.chilamkurti@latrobe.edu.au).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2011.2157949

been developed to support reachability at a global Internet Protocol (IP) address and continuous Internet connectivity while
a mobile host (MH) performs its handover between different
access networks.
NEtwork MObility Basic Support (NEMO-BS) is a mobility
support protocol specially designed to manage mobility of
an entire IP network in motion (NEtwork MObility, NEMO)
subnet, e.g., in-vehicle IP network [4]. In other words, session
connectivity and reachability for a set of hosts attached to a
mobile router (MR) is supported by the MR. In NEMO-BS, the
MR is responsible for maintaining the binding update (BU) list,
which is a conceptual data structure for the hosts attached to
the MR. While the MR resides at its home network, it obtains
its home address (HoA). As the MR is attached to a new access
router (AR), it configures a new address called care-of address
(CoA) based on the prefix announced by the AR. The MR then
registers a binding between its new CoA, which is used as a
locator, and the HoA, which is used as the identifier, by sending
a BU message to its home agent (HA), where it is recorded in
the binding cache. A binding acknowledgement (BA) message
from the HA is sent to the MR as a response message. This
location update enables the HA to record a network-specific
route that results in establishing a bidirectional tunnel between
the MR and HA for data packets destined to the hosts attached
to the MR. The data packets are first routed to the HA and
forwarded to the MR via the bidirectional tunnel. Then, the data
packets are delivered to the hosts by the MR.
Since NEMO-BS is the sole protocol that is able to provide
mobility for a set of hosts, i.e., NEMO, at the network-layer
level, it is considered in Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)
standards. For instance, NEMO-BS is adopted as part of the
Communication Architecture for Land Mobile (CALM), which
is also referred to as the ITS station reference architecture,
developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) TC204 WG16 [5]. ITS applications particularly for
general Internet access, image and video transfer, infotainment,
traffic management, and remote management will largely rely
on NEMO-BS. NEMO-BS has also been combined with geographic addressing and routing (GeoNetworking). This work,
which is initially specified by the GeoNet European project [6],
has been standardized by the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI) [7], [8].
Even though NEMO-BS provides session connectivity and
reachability for hosts attached to an MR, its handover performance is often not acceptable. In addition, mobility signaling
between the MR and HA must be exchanged for each handover
of the MR. Previously conducted studies [9][14] showed such
limitations of NEMO-BS and tried to improve the performance

0018-9545/$26.00 2011 IEEE

LEE et al.: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF P-NEMO FOR INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

of NEMO-BS by adding sophisticated algorithms or combining

additional protocols to NEMO-BS. However, more recently,
researchers have recognized that mobility for NEMO can be
smoothly supported by extending mobility service provisioning
entities introduced in PMIPv6 [15]. The possible scenarios
for NEMO with PMIPv6 have been presented and analyzed
in [16]. In [17] and [18], fundamental handover procedures
and required data structure improvements, are described, but
these initial approaches combining NEMO and PMIPv6 still
suffer from serious packet losses during handovers. Moreover,
a comprehensive performance analysis has been not reported.
In this paper, we introduce PMIPv6-based NEMO
(P-NEMO) support protocols for ITS communication. As
a base protocol, we present P-NEMO in which session
connectivity and reachability for hosts attached to an MR are
supported by mobility service provisioning entities residing in
a PMIPv6 domain. As an extension protocol to P-NEMO, we
further introduce fast P-NEMO (FP-NEMO) that accelerates
the handover procedure, allowing the reduction of handover
latency and preventing the packet losses during handovers.
FP-NEMO makes use of wireless L2 events to anticipate the
impending handover so that the mobility service provisioning
entities are able to prepare the handover prior to the attachment
to a new access network. Detailed handover procedures for
P-NEMO and FP-NEMO are provided, and handover timing
diagrams are conducted to evaluate the performance of the
proposed protocols P-NEMO and FP-NEMO, compared with
NEMO-BS in terms of traffic cost and handover latency.
The remainder of this paper starts with Section II explaining
the usage and identified limitations of NEMO-BS for ITS communication. In Section III, we present the proposed protocols
P-NEMO and FP-NEMO with their handover flow diagrams. In
Section IV, we intensively analyze the overall performance in
terms of traffic cost and handover latency. Section V concludes
this paper.
II. P RELIMINARIES
In this section, we describe the usage and identified limitations of NEMO-BS for ITS communication.
A. Usage of NEMO-BS for ITS Communication
In the context of vehicular communication in ITS, a vehicle
is equipped with an MR supporting NEMO-BS functionalities
and at least one computing equipment. The MR provides at least
two communication interfaces: 1) the egress interface used for
vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communication
and 2) the ingress interface used for forming the in-vehicle
network. The computing equipment of the vehicle is connected
to the MR via the ingress interface. That is, the computing
equipment is considered as a local fixed node in terms of
NEMO [19]. In addition, a Global Positioning System receiver
is installed for geographical routing. Fig. 1 shows an example of
networked vehicles being operated in the project-team IMARA
from INRIA.
The vehicular communication for the deployment of ITS application will rely on IPv6 designed to succeed IPv4 [20]. IPv6

75

Fig. 1. Networked vehicles for ITS communication.

provides an extended address space with embedded security,

enhanced mobility support, and ease of address configuration.
The major enhancement over IPv4 is the extended address
space that is sufficient to support hundreds of millions of vehicles, contrary to IPv4. The additional advantage of using IPv6
is that all ITS services, applications, and subsystems can fully
interoperate with existing and forthcoming Internet services
and applications. Accordingly, IPv6 has been selected as the
network-layer convergence protocol transparently interfacing
between all possible physical media and applications [20].
As such, NEMO-BS, which is the sole protocol for supporting NEMO in IPv6 network environments, has been adopted as
a mobility support protocol in several European projects. The
ISO CALM (TC204 WG16) ITS station architecture [5], [20]
aiming at completely supporting a variety of communication
scenarios between various ITS subsystems, a variety of communication types, and a diversity of ITS, infotainment, and legacy
applications over diverse physical media utilizes NEMO-BS to
maintain the vehicles session connectivity and reachability. It
has been implemented and tested in the Cooperative Vehicle
Infrastructure Systems (CVIS) European FP6 project [20], [21].
The CVIS implementation of the ISO CALM architecture has
proved the feasibility of NEMO-BS for mobility management
in various vehicular communication scenarios and helped to
the improvement of related ISO specifications. Sometime after
the beginning of the CVIS European FP6 project, the GeoNet
European FP7 project [6] was established to investigate how
GeoNetworking, i.e., geographical routing for vehicular ad hoc
networks relying on geographic position of vehicles, and IPv6
could be combined together. In this project, NEMO-BS has
been further investigated on top of GeoNetworking, with the
networked vehicles shown in Fig. 1. The approach of GeoNet
project, i.e., IPv6 GeoNetworking, has been integrated into
the ETSI ITS station architecture [6][8]. The ITSSv6 (IPv6
ITS Station Stack for Cooperative ITS Field Operational Tests)
European FP7 project is started in February 2011 with the
objective of developing an IPv6 stack suitable for ITS needs.

76

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

NEMO-BS is again decided to be the mobility support protocol

and tested with a set of ITS dedicated protocol blocks during
the field operational tests.
B. Limitations of NEMO-BS
NEMO-BS can be explained by two procedures such as
the location update and packet delivery. We here explain each
procedure with the identified limitations.
Location update: As long as an MR remains in its home
network, the MR is only required to configure its HoA
at its egress interface and communicates like any other
static IPv6 node with the HoA. When the MR crosses the
boundary of its current serving (home) network, the MR
detects its movement and configures its CoA based on the
prefix information of a router advertisement (RA) message
sent from an AR in the new access network. As soon as
the CoA configured at the egress interface of the MR is
available to use, the MR sends a BU message to its HA
located at the home network. This BU message binds the
CoA to the HoA, with the mobile network prefix (MNP)
being used in the mobile network of the MR. The HA
updates the binding cache entry for the MR and informs
the result of this location update to the MR by sending
a BA message. As the MR receives the BA message, it
updates its BU list. As a result, a bidirectional tunnel
between the MR and HA is established. This location
update procedure is based on that of MIPv6. Each time
the MR performs its handover, it is required to complete
the movement detection and duplicate address detection
(DAD) processes. The BU message to the HA cannot be
launched until those processes complete.
Packet delivery: As a result of the location update procedure, the bidirectional tunnel for data packets destined
to the hosts attached to the MR is established. As a
correspondent node (CN) sends data packets, those data
packets are first routed to the HA and then tunneled to
the MR. To solve this inefficient packet delivery, several
route optimization (RO) approaches for NEMO have been
proposed in literature, as well as the former IETF NEMO
Working Group, but none has been standardized as this is
a complex problem [22], [23]. Note that the RO for MIPv6
has been well defined in the specification [1].
NEMO-BS has been developed based on MIPv6, but it has
been not improved as MIPv6 improved. For instance, HMIPv6
employs a localized mobility management architecture for MHs
[2], and FMIPv6 enhances the handover performance of MHs
by utilizing wireless L2 events [3]. Moreover, a mobility support stack is required to be implemented in an MR because
NEMO-BS is a host-based mobility support protocol.1
1 Host-based mobility support protocols, e.g., MIPv6 [1], HMIPv6 [2],
FMIPv6 [3], and NEMO-BS [4], require a mobility support stack, which
participates in the location update procedure during handovers. Modifications
or upgrades of existing mobile devices are thus required to support mobility
services. On the other hand, a network-based mobility support protocol, e.g.,
PMIPv6 [15], does not require a mobility support stack at mobile devices.
Mobility services are supported by network entities.

Fig. 2.

Reference network architecture.

III. N ETWORK M OBILITY S UPPORT

P ROTOCOLS BASED ON PMIP V 6
In this section, we present the proposed NEMO support
protocols based on PMIPv6: P-NEMO and FP-NEMO. Fig. 2
shows a reference network architecture wherein a vehicles
mobility is supported by the extended mobile access gateway
(MAG) and local mobility anchor (LMA) in a given PMIPv6
domain. In Fig. 2, a typical handover case is shown, i.e., the
MR of the vehicle changes its location from a previous MAG
(pMAG) to a new MAG (nMAG). The proposed protocols are
limited to NEMO support within the given PMIPv6 domain.
A. P-NEMO
In P-NEMO, session connectivity and reachability for hosts
attached to a vehicles MR are supported by the extended MAG
and LMA. Mobility signaling, i.e., proxy BU (PBU) and proxy
BA (PBA) messages, is exchanged between the MAG and
LMA. The functionalities of MAG and LMA are required to
be improved.
MAG for P-NEMO: The BU list is required to be extended
for maintaining each MRs MNP. The MAG is required to
distinguish and obtain the MNP and home network prefix
(HNP) from a PBA message sent from the LMA. It is also
required to send an RA message, including the MNP and
HNP to the MR.
LMA for P-NEMO: The binding cache is required to be
extended for maintaining each MRs MNP. The LMA is
required to assign a specific MNP to a required MR.
Fig. 3 shows the signaling call flow of P-NEMO when the
MR performs its handover from its current access network
of pMAG to a new access network of nMAG. By utilizing
the wireless L2 trigger, the pMAG detects that the MR will
change its point of attachment to the nMAG. To inform the
detachment of the MR on its access network, pMAG sends the
deregistration PBU (DeReg. PBU) message to the LMA. Upon
receiving this request, the LMA identifies the corresponding
mobility session for the MR and sends the deregistration PBA
(DeReg. PBA) message back to the pMAG. Then, the LMA
will wait for a handover registration for the MR from other

LEE et al.: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF P-NEMO FOR INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Fig. 3.

77

Signaling call flow of P-NEMO.

MAG, e.g., nMAG, for a predefined time [15]. As the MRs

link status is changed to up on the access network of nMAG, the
MR is attached. Then, the MR goes through an authentication
procedure for network access, which is not considered in this
paper. Note that the authentication procedure depends on the
deployed security protocol [24][26].
The nMAG could recognize the attachment of the MR on
its access network during the authentication procedure for
the MR. However, in this paper, we assume that the nMAG
waits for a router solicitation (RS) message sent from the MR
to explicitly detect the attachment of the MR on the access
network. Upon receiving the RS message, the nMAG sends
a PBU message to the LMA to inform the attachment of the
MR. The LMA, which is a topological anchor point for the
MR, checks the PBU message with the included MR-ID and
updates the corresponding binding cache for the MR, e.g., the
enabling routing entry of MR with the HNP and MNP. As
a response, a PBA message containing at least the MR-ID,
HNP, and MNP is sent from the LMA to the nMAG. This
location update between the LMA and nMAG establishes a
bidirectional tunnel for data packet forwarding service for the
MR. This bidirectional tunnel is implemented by IPv6-in-IPv6
encapsulation described in [27]. The nMAG updates its BU list
for the MR, e.g., enabling routing entry of MR with the HNP
and MNP, so that data packets destined to the MR and the hosts
attached to the MR are enabled to be routed via the bidirectional
tunnel.
For prefix provisioning, the nMAG advertises an RA message including two different types of network prefixes: HNP
and MNP. As described in [15], the HNP included in the RA
message is the same one that the MR obtains from its home
network. Accordingly, the MRs address configured at its egress
interface is already the same as it receives the same HNP in the
given PMIPv6 domain. In other words, all MAGs in the given
PMIPv6 provide the network emulation to the MR by sending
RA messages including the same HNP. The MNP carried by
the RA message is used for the mobile network of MR. For
instance, the hosts attached to the MR configure their addresses
based on the MNP.
Since prefixes and routing of a vehicles MR maintained
by the LMA, centralized mobility management for vehicles is
achieved. Incoming and outgoing data packets for a specific

vehicle are easily controlled at the LMA. In addition, the

reallocation and revoking of assigned prefixes to a specific
vehicle are done with ease.

B. FP-NEMO
As an extension to P-NEMO, FP-NEMO is described here.
FP-NEMO optimizes the handover performance of P-NEMO
by utilizing wireless L2 events to anticipate the impending
handover of the vehicles MR. Prior to the attachment of MR
to a new access network, the context of MR is transferred from
the pMAG to the nMAG via the bidirectional tunnel established
between them. The fast handover approach for an MH in
PMIPv6 has been recently standardized as Fast Handovers for
PMIPv6 (FPMIPv6) [28], but it is only designed to enhance the
handover performance of a single MH. FP-NEMO adopts the
approach of FPMIPv6, consisting of the predictive and reactive
modes. In this paper, we only describe the predictive mode
of FP-NEMO.
For FP-NEMO, the following functionalities of MAG and
LMA are required:
MAG for FP-NEMO: The functionalities of MAG in
P-NEMO are required. The neighbor MAGs information
such as network identification and address is maintained in
each MAG. The context transfer functionality is required
to send and receive the context of the MR from neighbor
MAGs. This context transfer is triggered by wireless L2
events, so that it is reasonably assumed that the transmission of the context from the pMAG to the nMAG is completed before the MR actually attaches to the nMAG. The
data packet forwarding and buffering functionalities are
required to prevent packet loss during the MRs handover.
LMA for FP-NEMO: The functionalities of LMA in
P-NEMO are required.
Fig. 4 shows the signaling call flow of FP-NEMO when
the MR performs its handover from its current access network
of pMAG to a new access network of nMAG. As shown in
Fig. 4, the fast handover support of FP-NEMO is started with
the MRs handover report, which is access technology specific.
This report provides the MR-ID and the new access network
information to the pMAG. The handover initiate (HI) message,

78

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

Fig. 4. Signaling call flow of FP-NEMO.

including the MRs identification, HNP, MNP, and LMA address, are sent to the nMAG. Upon the nMAG obtaining the
HI message, it checks if its status is able to serve the fast
handover support for the MR. Note that the nMAGs decision
for request of fast handover support is determined based on
the requested MRs priority, available buffer size, number of
attached MRs, etc. The nMAG sends the handover acknowledge
(HAck) message including the acceptance or refusal value back
to the pMAG. In the case of acceptance, the pMAG and nMAG
updates their routing status and BU list for the MR. The pMAG
forwards data packets for the MR, i.e., data packets destined
to the MR or hosts attached to the MR, to the nMAG if only
it receives the HAck message with the acceptance value. Note
that this data packet forwarding is continued until the pMAG
receives data packets for the MR from the LMA.
As the link of MR is down from the access network of
pMAG, the MR undergoes the link switching process, i.e., L2
handover, from the pMAG to the nMAG. Then, as the nMAG
is informed the attachment of the MR at its access network, it
immediately sends data packets buffered to the MR. As shown
in Fig. 4, the RS message is assumed to be an indicator for
the attachment of the MR in this paper. The nMAG informs the
attachment of the MR to the LMA by sending the PBU message
and receives the PBA message. As the bidirectional tunnel
between the LMA and nMAG is established, data packets for
the MR go through this tunnel, as described in [28]. The rest
signaling call flow of FP-NEMO is the same with those of
P-NEMO.
Thanks to the context transfer triggered by wireless L2
events, FP-NEMO minimizes the service interruption occurred
by the MRs handover and prevents packet losses.

IV. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS

In this section, we develop an analytical model for analyzing
the performances of P-NEMO and FP-NEMO, compared with
NEMO-BS. Then, we present the conducted numerical results
that P-NEMO, FP-NEMO, and NEMO-BS are compared in

terms of signaling and packet tunneling costs and handover

latency. The used notations are listed in Table I.
A. Mobility and Traffic Models
We assume that the session arrivals to an MR are a Poisson
process so that the time interval between two consecutive
sessions to the MR is also considered to be an exponentially
distributed with rate S . The access network residence time of
an MR follows a general distribution with mean 1/L , and its
probability density function is fL (t). Suppose that fL (s) is the
Laplace transform of fL (t) and is expressed as
fL (s) =

est fL (t)dt.

(1)

t=0

For simplicity, we assume that the access network residence

time of the MR is exponentially distributed with mean 1/L in
this paper. Then, the LaplaceStieltjes transform of fL (t), i.e.,
the LaplaceStieltjes transform for an exponentially distributed
random variable [29], is expressed as
fL (s)

=

est L eL t dt.

(2)

t=0

Suppose that NL is the number of access networks that an

MR moves during an intersession arrival time. Let P r[NL =
K] = (K) denote the probability that the MR travels across
K access networks between two consecutive sessions. Then,
(K) is derived as follows:


1fL
(S )
,
K=0
1
S

(3)
(K) =
2
K1
1

, K1
S (1 fL (S )) (fL (S ))
where S is the session-to-mobility ratio obtained as S /L
[30], [31].

LEE et al.: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF P-NEMO FOR INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

79

TABLE I
N OTATIONS

C. Traffic Cost Analysis

The signaling cost is defined as the mobility signaling
overhead incurred during a handover registration, whereas the
packet tunneling cost is defined as the tunneling overhead of
data packets sent from the CN to the MR [31][33].
(NEMOBS)
is the signaling cost of NEMOSuppose that CSG
(NEMOBS)
is expressed as follows:
BS per unit time. Then, CSG
(NEMOBS)

CSG

i


=
Fig. 5.

Considered topology.


(i) LU (NEMOBS)

i=0


i=1

i
(1 fL (S ))2 (fL (S ))i1
S


LU (NEMOBS)
(5)

B. Considered Topology
The considered topology for performance analysis is shown
in Fig. 5, showing communication paths between relevant
nodes. Note that communication paths related to the CN, i.e.,
HCNLMA and HCNHA , are not used in our analysis.
Suppose that  is a localization value indicating the degree
of localized mobility management. Then,  is expressed as
Distance between M oving Object and Local Agent
Distance between M oving Object and Global Agent
HLMAMAG + HMAGMR
(4)
=
HHAAR + HARMR

=

where 0 <  1.
We assume that the wired link is robust and no message transmission failure is expected, whereas the message transmission
failure over the wireless link, e.g., HMAGMR and HARMR ,
is expected.

where LU (NEMOBS) is the location update overhead of

NEMO-BS for each handover. In NEMO-BS, BU and BA
messages are exchanged between the MR and the HA for
each handover. Let P r[nf f ailures and 1 success] = (nf )
denote the probability that a message transmission over the
wireless link fails nf times before the message successfully is
transmitted. LU (NEMOBS) is thus calculated as follows:
LU (NEMOBS) =

nf (nf )SARMR + SHAAR

(6)

nf

where
SARMR = HARMR (SBU + SBA ),
SHAAR =
HHAAR (SBU + SBA ), and nf is taken into account for the
wireless link. We apply pf into (6) and then have [34]
LU (NEMOBS) =

pf SARMR
+ SHAAR .
1 pf

(7)

80

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

The bidirectional tunnel is established between the HA and

the MR as a result of location update in NEMO-BS. Suppose
(NEMOBS)
is the packet tunneling cost of NEMO-BS
that CPT
per session. Let E(S) denote the session length, which is deter(NEMOBS)
mined by the number of fixed size packets. Then, CPT
is calculated as follows:
Fig. 6.

(NEMOBS)

CPT

= nn

= nn

nf (nf )PARMR + PHAAR E(S)

nf


pf PARMR
+ PHAAR E(S)
1 pf

(8)

where nn is assumed to be uniformly distributed in [0, nt ],

PARMR = HARMR SHD , and PHAAR = HHAAR SHD .
(PNEMO)
Suppose that CSG
is the signaling cost of P-NEMO
(PNEMO)
is expressed as follows:
per unit time. Then, CSG
(PNEMO)

CSG 

i
(i) LU (PNEMO)
i=0


 i
2
i1

LU (PNEMO)
=
(1 fL (S )) (fL (S ))
S

i=1
(9)
=

where LU (PNEMO) is the location update overhead of

P-NEMO for each handover. The location update for the MR
is performed between the mobility service provisioning entities, i.e., MAG and LMA. Accordingly, LU (PNEMO) is thus
calculated as follows:
LU (PNEMO) = 2SLMAMAG

(10)

where SLMAMAG = HLMAMAG (SPBU +SPBA ). Compared

with NEMO-BS, the location update overhead over the wireless
link is avoided. However, the double location update overhead
is considered, i.e., one between the pMAG and LMA and
another one between the nMAG and LMA.
The bidirectional tunnel is established between the LMA and
the nMAG as a result of location update in P-NEMO. Suppose
(PNEMO)
is the packet tunneling cost of P-NEMO per
that CPT
(PNEMO)
is calculated as follows:
session. Then, CPT
(PNEMO)

CPT

= nn PLMAMAG E(S)

(11)

where PLMAMAG = HLMAMAG SHD .

(FPNEMO)
is the signaling cost of FP-NEMO
Suppose that CSG
(FPNEMO)
is expressed as follows:
per unit time. Then, CSG
(FPNEMO)
CSG 

i
(i) LU (FPNEMO)
 i=0

 i
2
i1

=
(1 fL (S )) (fL (S ))
LU (FPNEMO)
S

i=1
(12)
=

Handover timing diagram of NEMO-BS.

where LU (FPNEMO) is the location update overhead of

P-NEMO for each handover. The location update for the MR is
performed between the mobility service provisioning entities,
i.e., MAG and LMA. Accordingly, LU (FPNEMO) is thus
calculated as follows:
LU (FPNEMO) = SMAGs + SLMAMAG

(13)

where SMAGs = HMAGs (SHI + SHAck ). Compared with

P-NEMO, mobility signaling for context transfer between
neighboring MAGs is taken into account, but the double
location update overhead is not occurred.
The two bidirectional tunnels are established between the
neighboring MAGs and between the LMA and the nMAG in
(FPNEMO)
is the packet tunneling
FP-NEMO. Suppose that CPT
(FPNEMO)
is calcucost of FP-NEMO per session. Then, CPT
lated as follows:
(FPNEMO)

CPT

= wnn (PLMAMAG + PMAGs )E(S)

+ (1 w)nn PLMAMAG E(S) (14)

where w is the ratio of data packets going to be forwarded from

the pMAG to the nMAG and PMAGs = HMAGs SHD .
D. Handover Latency Analysis
We define the handover latency as the time elapses the
moment when the link-layer handover ends and the moment an
MR involving its hosts receives the first data packet.
Fig. 6 shows the handover timing diagram of NEMO-BS.
(NEMOBS)
Suppose that LHO
is the handover latency of NEMO(NEMOBS)
is calculated as follows:
BS. Then, LHO
(NEMOBS)

LHO

= TWRS + TMD + TDAD

(NEMOBS)

+ TLU

(NEMOBS)

+ TP

(15)

where TWRS is a random value uniformly distributed in the interval [0, M AX_RT R_SOLICIT AT ION _DELAY ]. The
movement detection process is started by sending an RS message and is completed by receiving a solicited RA message in
the new access network. Thus, TMD is expressed as follows:
(NEMOBS)

TMD = TRS

+ TRA .

(16)

The delay including the packet service delay and the prop(NEMOBS)
and TRA . Let DP
agation delay is required for TRS
denotes the packet service delay consisting of the processing
delay and the transmission delay at each node. We adopt the
M/M/1 queuing model for the packet service delay. Suppose
that there is no packet loss during the processing. Let 1/P and

LEE et al.: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF P-NEMO FOR INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

81

P be the average packet transmission time and the average

packet arrival rate, respectively. Assuming that all nodes have
the same value for the utilization factor in the context of M/M/1
queuing model, we have
(NEMOBS)

TRS

= TRA =

pf DARMR
1 pf

(17)
Fig. 7. Handover timing diagram of P-NEMO.

where DARMR = HARMR (DP + D ), D is the propagation delay for the wireless link, and DP is derived as
DP = 1/(1 )P

(18)

where = P /P .
In turn, TDAD in (15) is replaced as RetransT imer defined
in [35] and [36], with the assumption that the address, i.e.,
CoA generated based on the network prefix provided in the
RA message, is not used in any node in the access network.
This is because the DAD process is successfully completed if
a defending neighbor advertisement message for the CoA does
not arrived in RetransT imer [35], [37].
(NEMOBS)
is the delay of the handover registraIn (15), TLU
tion and is represented as the sum of the delay for exchanging
the BU and BA messages between the MR and HA. Suppose that the BA message and the data packet destined for
the MR are simultaneously sent from the HA. Accordingly,
(NEMOBS)
(NEMOBS)
+ TP
is calculated as follows:
TLU
(NEMOBS)

TLU

(NEMOBS)

+ TP

pf DARMR
+ DHAAR
1 pf
(NEMOBS)

+ max(TBA , TP

pf DARMR
+ DHAAR
1 pf


pf DARMR
=
+ DHAAR
1 pf

TBA =
(NBS)

(20)
(21)

where is taken in account of (21).

Fig. 7 shows the handover timing diagram of P-NEMO. Let
(PNEMO)
be the handover latency of P-NEMO. Then, similar
LHO
(PNEMO)
is
to the analysis used for that of NEMO-BS, LHO
calculated as follows:
(PNEMO)

LHO

= TWRS
(PNEMO)
TRS

(PNEMO)

where TRS

In P-NEMO, the MAG serving the MR sends a PBU message

for the handover registration. Assuming that the LMA simultaneously sends the PBA message and data packet destined for
(PNEMO)
(PNEMO)
+ TP
is calculated as follows:
the MR, TLU
(PNEMO)

TLU

(PNEMO)

+ TP

= DLMAMAG


(PNEMO)
+ max TPBA , TP

TPBA = DLMAMAG
(PNEMO)

TP

(26)

where only has an effect on the section between the serving

MAG and the LMA that are the tunnel endpoints in P-NEMO.
Fig. 8 shows the handover timing diagram of FP-NEMO.
(FPNEMO)
is the handover latency of
Suppose that LHO
FP-NEMO. The data packets destined for the MR have been
buffered at the nMAG before the MR attaches with the nMAG.
The nMAG recognizes the attachment of the MR as it receives
the RS message. Then, the buffered data packets are immedi(FPNEMO)
is thus
ately sent from the nMAG to the MR. LHO
calculated as follows:
(FPNEMO)

LHO

(FPNEMO)

= TWRS +TRS

(FPNEMO)

where TRS
culated as follows:

(PNEMO)

= TRS

(FPNEMO)

(PNEMO)
TP

(25)

pf DMAGMR
+ (DLMAMAG )
1 pf

TP
(PNEMO)
TLU

(24)

where DLMAMAG = HLMAMAG (DP + D ), and TPBA is

the arrival delay of the PBA message sent from the LMA to the
(PNEMO)
are calculated as follows:
MR. Then, TPBA and TP

) (19)

where DHAAR = HHAAR (DP + D ), D = d/ is the

propagation delay for the wired link that mainly depends on
the physical distance between entities d and the propagation
speed in the wired link , and TBA is the arrival delay of the
BA message sent from the HA to the MR. Then, TBA and
(NEMOBS)
are calculated as follows:
TP

TP

Fig. 8. Handover timing diagram of FP-NEMO.

(22)

(FPNEMO)

(27)

(FPNEMO)

is cal-

+TP

, and TP

pf DMAGMR
.
1 pf

(28)

is calculated as follows:

(PNEMO)

TRS

pf DMAGMR
1 pf

where DMAGMR = HMAGMR (DP + D ).

E. Numerical Results
(23)

In this subsection, comparative numerical results on three

protocols are presented. The following values for parameters are used: M AX_RT R_SOLICIT AT ION _DELAY =

82

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

NEMOBS/PNEMO

Variation of relative cost performance gains with HHAAR = 10. (a) GC

Fig. 9.

pf and S . (c)

PNEMO/FPNEMO
GC

NEMOBS/PNEMO

and S . (c)

NEMOBS/PNEMO

(NEMOBS)

+ CPT

(PNEMO)

+ CPT

CSG

CSG

(NEMOBS)
(PNEMO)

(29)
NEMOBS/FPNEMO

GC

(NEMOBS)

+ CPT

(FPNEMO)

+ CPT

CSG
CSG

(NEMOBS)
(FPNEMO)

(30)
PNEMO/FPNEMO

GC

NEMOBS/FPNEMO

versus
and S . (b) GC

versus

versus
and S .

RetransT imer = 1000 ms, E(S) = 10, S = [0.01, 10],

P = 50 packet/s, = 0.1, d = 1500 m, = 2 108 m/s, and
w = 0.2 [33], [35].
For the purpose of comparison, we define the relative cost
performance gains as follows:
GC

versus

versus pf and S .

Fig. 10. Variation of relative cost performance gains with pf = 0.1. (a) GC
PNEMO/FPNEMO
GC

NEMOBS/FPNEMO

versus pf and S . (b) GC

(PNEMO)

+ CPT

(FPNEMO)

+ CPT

CSG
CSG

(PNEMO)
(FPNEMO)

(31)
Fig. 9 shows the variation of the relative cost performance
gains against S and pf with HHAAR = 10, i.e.,  = 0.55.
Here, S and pf are varied from 0.1 to 10 and from 0.1 to
0.5, respectively. When S is high, low mobility with a high
session rate happens, i.e., session activity dominates mobility.
S is thus a more serious performance factor than L . On the
other hand, high mobility with a low session rate happens when
S is low, i.e., the MRs handover more frequently happens

than session arrivals. Moreover, pf indicates how the wireless

link between the MR and the serving AR/MAG is robust. For
instance, as pf is increased, the frame error rate and frame
retransmission over the wireless link are increased so that the
overall performance is downgraded.
As shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b), P-NEMO and FP-NEMO
generally outperform NEMO-BS. In particular, as S is increased, the relative cost performance gains of P-NEMO and
FP-NEMO to NEMO-BS are also increased. Since the double
location update overhead of P-NEMO, P-NEMO shows low
performance than that of NEMO-BS particularly when S is
low, e.g., S < 0.5. On the other hand, FP-NEMO does not
show much performance improvement compared to P-NEMO
when 4 < S . This phenomenon is due to the increased routing
paths, e.g., portion of a session or some of data packets are additionally transmitted through the bidirectional tunnel established
between the neighboring MAGs. Next, we see the variation
of relative cost performance gains of FP-NEMO to P-NEMO
in Fig. 9(c). As shown, FP-NEMO shows better performance
when S is low because of the double location update overhead
of P-NEMO, but P-NEMO outperforms FP-NEMO as S is
increased.
Fig. 10 shows the variation of the relative cost performance
gains against S and HHAAR with pf = 0.1. Here, S is
varied from 0.1 to 10. In addition, HHAAR is varied from 5
to 15, i.e.,  is changed from 1 to 0.38. Note that  = 1 means
that NEMO-BS has the same degree of localized mobility
management with P-NEMO and FP-NEMO.

LEE et al.: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF P-NEMO FOR INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

83

NEMOBS/PNEMO

Fig. 11. Variation of relative handover performance gains with HHAAR = 10.(a) GH
versus pf and . (c)

PNEMO/FPNEMO
GH

versus pf and .

NEMOBS/PNEMO

Fig. 12. Variation of relative handover performance gains with pf = 0.1. (a) GH

and . (c)

PNEMO/FPNEMO
GH

NEMOBS/FPNEMO

versus pf and . (b) GH

NEMOBS/FPNEMO

versus
and . (b) GH

versus

versus
and .

In Fig. 10(a) and (b), we confirm that P-NEMO and

FP-NEMO show better performance than NEMO-BS as
HHAAR is increased. However, as shown, NEMO-BS outperforms P-NEMO and FP-NEMO when HHAAR remains in low
levels. This is obviously explained with the double location
update overhead of P-NEMO and the increased routing paths
of FP-NEMO. Nevertheless, those situations, i.e., HHAAR
remains in low levels, resulting in a degree of localized mobility
management, hardly happens. The result of Fig. 10(c) is the
same as that of Fig. 9(c) because the change in HHAAR does
not affect both protocols.
Next, we define the relative handover performance gains as
follows:
(NEMOBS)

NEMOBS/PNEMO

GH

LHO

(32)

(PNEMO)

LHO

(NEMOBS)

NEMOBS/FPNEMO

GH

LHO

(33)

(FPNEMO)

LHO

to be a critical performance factor than traffic cost. For instance,

packet losses during a handover are proportional to handover
latency unless a buffering technique is deployed. Note that the
traffic cost consisting of signaling cost and packet tunneling
cost is considered to be a performance factor to investigate the
overall traffic overhead to the network.
As shown in Fig. 11(a) and (b), P-NEMO and FP-NEMO
show significantly improved handover performance, compared
with NEMO-BS. Then, as shown in Fig. 11(c), FP-NEMO
also outperforms P-NEMO due to the context transfer being
triggered by wireless L2 events. In addition, FP-NEMO prevents packet losses during handovers, whereas NEMO-BS and
P-NEMO suffer from packet losses due to lack of any buffering
technique.
We again confirm that NEMO-BS shows better performance
as  approaches 1 in Fig. 12(a) and (b). However, as shown,
P-NEMO and FP-NEMO always outperform NEMO-BS.
Again, the result of Fig. 12(c) is the same as that of Fig. 11(c)
because the change in HHAAR does not affect P-NEMO and
FP-NEMO.

(PNEMO)

PNEMO/FPNEMO

GH

LHO

(FPNEMO)

(34)

LHO

The variation of the relative handover performance gains

against pf and is shown in Fig. 11. Here, HHAAR is set
as 10, i.e.,  = 0.55. Then, pf and are varied from 0.1
to 0.5 and from 1 to 1.2, respectively. Because this handover
performance directly affects user experiences, it is considered

V. C ONCLUSION
NEMO Basic Support (NEMO-BS) is the mobility management protocol considered in ITS standards to maintain Internet
connectivity of vehicles. However, NEMO-BS often results
in unacceptable long handover latency and increased traffic
load to the vehicle. To address these issues, in this paper, we
have introduced new NEMO support protocols, which rely on

84

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 1, JANUARY 2012

mobility service provisioning entities introduced in PMIPv6.

As a base protocol, we have presented P-NEMO that enables a
vehicle to keep its Internet connectivity while moving without
participating in the location update. In P-NEMO, the mobility
management for the vehicle is supported by mobility service
provisioning entities residing in a given PMIPv6 domain.
To further improve handover performance, we have proposed
FP-NEMO to anticipate the vehicles handover based on wireless L2 events. The mobility service provisioning entities prepare the vehicles handover prior to the attachment of the
vehicle to the new access network. Detailed handover procedures for P-NEMO and FP-NEMO have been provided. Then,
handover timing diagrams have been presented for analyzing
the performance of the proposed protocols P-NEMO and FPNEMO, compared with NEMO-BS in terms of traffic cost and
handover latency. The numerical results conducted in this paper
confirm the better performance of P-NEMO and FP-NEMO,
thereby achieving seamless handover with lower traffic cost and
reduced handover latency.

R EFERENCES
[1] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, Mobility Support in IPv6, RFC
3775, Jun. 2004.
[2] H. Soliman, C. Castelluccia, K. ElMalki, and L. Bellier, Hierarchical
Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility Management, RFC 5380, Oct. 2008.
[3] R. Koodli, Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers, RFC 5568, Jul. 2009.
[4] V. Devarapalli, R. Wakikawa, A. Petrescu, and P. Thubert, Network
Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol, RFC 3963, Jan. 2005.
[5] Intelligent Transport SystemsContinuous Air Interface, Long and
Medium Range (CALM)IPv6 Networking, ISO Draft DIS 21210,
Feb. 2009.
[6] GeoNet Project, Jul. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.geonetproject.eu/
[7] Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); Vehicular Communications; GeoNetworking; Part 3: Network Architecture, ETSI TS 102 636-3, Mar. 2010.
[8] Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); Vehicular Communications; Part 4:
Geographical Addressing and Forwarding for Point-to-Point and Point-toMultipoint Communications; Sub-part 1: Media-Independent Functionality, ETSI TS 102 636-4-1, Nov. 2010.
[9] H. Petander, E. Perera, K.-C. Lan, and A. Seneviratne, Measuring and
improving the performance of network mobility management in IPv6
networks, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 16711681,
Sep. 2006.
[10] Q. B. Mussabbir, W. Yao, Z. Niu, and X. Fu, Optimized FMIPv6 using
IEEE 802.21 MIH services in vehicular networks, IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 33973407, Nov. 2007.
[11] S.-J. Yoo, S.-J. Choi, and D. Su, Analysis of fast handover mechanisms
for hierarchical mobile IPv6 network mobility, Wireless Pers. Commun.,
vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 215238, Jan. 2009.
[12] R. Kuntz, J. Montavont, G. Schreiner, D. Binet, and T. Noel, An improved
network mobility service for intelligent transportation systems, Wireless
Commun. Mobile Comput., Oct. 2009, DOI: 10.1002/wcm.860.
[13] S. Pack, T. Kwon, Y. Choi, and E. Paik, An adaptive network mobility
support protocol in hierarchical mobile IPv6 networks, IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 36273639, Sep. 2009.
[14] M. Tsukada, J. Santa, O. Mehani, Y. Khaled, and T. Ernst, Design and
experimental evaluation of a vehicular network based on NEMO and
MANET, EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process., vol. 2010, Mar. 2010.
[15] S. Gundavelli, K. Leung, V. Devarapalli, K. Chowdhury, and B. Patil,
Proxy Mobile IPv6, RFC 5213, Aug. 2008.
[16] J.-H. Lee, B.-J. Han, T.-M. Chung, and H.-J. Lim, Network mobility
basic support within proxy mobile IPv6: scenarios and analysis, draftjhlee-netlmm-nemo-scenarios-01, Sep. 2008.
[17] I. Soto, C. J. Bernardos, M. Calderon, A. Banchs, and A. Azcorra,
NEMO-enabled localized mobility support for Internet access in automotive scenarios, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 152159,
May 2009.

[18] Z. Yan, H. Zhou, and I. You, N-NEMO: A comprehensive network

mobility solution in proxy mobile IPv6 network, J. Wireless Mobile
Netw., Ubiquitous Comput., Dependable Appl., vol. 1, no. 2/3, pp. 5270,
Sep. 2010.
[19] T. Ernst and H.-Y. Lach, Network Mobility Support Terminology, RFC
4885, Jul. 2004.
[20] T. Ernst, V. Nebehaj, and R. Sorasen, CVIS: CALM proof of concept
preliminary results, in Proc. Int. Conf. ITST, Oct. 2009, pp. 8085.
[21] CVIS Project, Dec. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.cvisproject.org/
[22] H.-J. Lim, M. Kim, J.-H. Lee, and T.-M. Chung, Route optimization in
nested NEMO: Classification, evaluation and analysis from NEMO fringe
stub perspective, IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 1554
1572, Nov. 2009.
[23] C. Ng, F. Zhao, M. Watari, and P. Thubert, Network Mobility Route
Optimization Solution Space Analysis, RFC 4889, Jul. 2007.
[24] H. Kim and J.-H. Lee, Diffie-Hellman key based authentication in proxy
mobile IPv6, Mobile Inf. Syst., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 107121, Jan. 2010.
[25] J.-H. Lee and T.-M. Chung, Secure handover for proxy mobile IPv6 in
next-generation communications: Scenarios and performance, Wireless
Commun. Mobile Comput., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 176186, Feb. 2011.
[26] F. Xia, B. Sarikaya, J. Korhonen, S. Gundavelli, and D. Damic, RADIUS
Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6,draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6-02,
Mar. 2011.
[27] A. Conta and S. Deering, Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification, RFC 2473, Dec. 1998.
[28] H. Yokota, K. Chowdhury, R. Koodli, B. Patil, and F. Xia, Fast
Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6, RFC 5949, Sep. 2010.
[29] K. S. Trivedi, Probability and Statistics with Reliability, Queuing and
Computer Science Applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2002.
[30] Y. Lin, Reducing location update cost in a PCS network, IEEE/ACM
Trans. Netw., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 2533, Feb. 1997.
[31] J.-H. Lee and T.-M. Chung, How much do we gain by introducing
route optimization in proxy mobile IPv6 networks? Ann. Telecommun.,
vol. 65, no. 5/6, pp. 233246, Jun. 2010.
[32] J.-H. Lee, T. Ernst, and T.-M. Chung, Cost analysis of IP mobility management protocols for consumer mobile devices, IEEE Trans. Consum.
Electron., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 10101017, May 2010.
[33] J.-H. Lee, Y.-H. Han, S. Gundavelli, and T.-M. Chung, A comparative
performance analysis on hierarchical mobile IPv6 and Proxy Mobile
IPv6, Telecommun. Syst., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 279292, Aug. 2009.
[34] J. McNair, I. F. Akyildiz, and M. D. Bender, An inter-system handoff technique for the IMT-2000 system, in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM,
Mar. 2000, pp. 208216.
[35] T. Narten, E. Nordmark, and W. Simpson, Neighbor Discovery for IP
Version 6 (IPv6), IETF RFC 24611998, Dec..
[36] S. Thomson, T. Narten, and T. Jinmei, IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration, RFC 4862, Sep. 2007.
[37] Y.-H. Han and S.-G. Min, Performance analysis of hierarchical mobile
IPv6: Does it improve mobile IPv6 in terms of handover speed? Wireless
Pers. Commun., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 463483, Mar. 2009.

Jong-Hyouk Lee received the Ph.D. degree from

Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.
He is developing efficient secure communications
for NEMO based vehicular networks in the projectteam IMARA, The French National Institute for
Research in Computer Science and Control (INRIA),
Rocquencourt, France. He has worked for the
GeoNet European project (IPv6 GeoNetworking)
and the MobiSeND French national project. He
is currently participating in the ITSSv6 European
project and the SCOREF French national project. He
is also involved in standardization activities at ISO TC204 WG16 and ETSI
TC ITS. He is an Associate Editor for Wileys Security and Communication
Networks (SCN) and Wiley InterScience. He is a cofounder of the International
Workshop on Mobility Modeling and Performance Evaluation (MoMoPE). His
research interests include mobility management, security, and performance
analysis based on protocol operations for next-generation wireless mobile
networks.
Dr. Lee was twice the recipient of Excellent Research Awards from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University.

LEE et al.: PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF P-NEMO FOR INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Thierry Ernst received the Ph.D. degree from

the University Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France, in
October 2001.
He was with Keio University, Tokyo, Japan, as a
Non-Tenure Researcher for four years. He is internationally recognized in the field of IPv6 mobility (he
launched the NEtwork MObility NEMO research
topic and is the founder and former chair of the
NEMO working group at the Internet Engineering
Task Force), which has led him to specify IPv6based communication architectures for cooperative
intelligent transport systems (C-ITSs). As such, he has set up and ensured
technical coordination of the FP7 GeoNet project, which aimed at specifying
and developing the IPv6 multicast distribution of messages to vehicles located
in a geographic area (IPv6 GeoNetworking). He is currently coordinating the
recently started FP7 ITSSv6 project (IPv6 stack for intelligent transport system
(ITS) stations). He is involved in field operational tests of C-ITS (FP7 DRIVEC2X and SCOREF in France) and C-ITS standardization activities (ITS station
reference architecture set of standards) at ISO TC204 (CALM), CEN TC278
WG16/ISO TC204 WG18 (C-ITS), and the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI) Technical Committee (TC) ITS. He is a member
of the French national delegation in these groups. He is currently serving as
Co-Chair of the ETSI TC ITS WG3. Now working at ARMINES, he is the
Head of a five-to-six-person-strong (and mostly INRIA-based) research and
development group that specializes in IPv6 communications for C-ITS.

85

Naveen Chilamkurti received the Ph.D. from La

Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
He is currently a Senior Lecturer with the
Department of Computer Science and Computer
Engineering, La Trobe University. He is an Inaugural Editor-in-Chief for the International Journal of
Wireless Networks and Broadband Technologies. He
has published about 100 journal and conference proceeding papers. He currently serves on the editorial
boards of several international journals. His current
research areas include wireless multimedia, wireless
sensor networks, nanocommunications, vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicleto-vehicle communications, multicast congestion control, multicast security,
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol congestion control, and crosslayer techniques.