Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Efficient Vertical Handover Approaches for Increased User Satisfaction in Next Generation Networks

Tabinda Salam 1, Samina Mushtaq 1, Taleaa Khalid 1, Muhammad Ali 2, Muhammad Amin 3
Department of Computer Science Frontier Women University Peshawar, Pakistan. 2,3 Institute of Management Sciences Peshawar, Pakistan
2

tabinda.salam@fwu.edu.pk muhammad.ali@imsciences.edu.pk 3 ma_ahsan@hotmail.com

Abstract The next generation of wireless networks will integrate the current co-existing wireless networks to allow the users to connect to the network that best suits their needs. The users will be enabled to roam among different networks by a process known as vertical handover. Vertical handover can be imperative or alternative depending upon the reason of handover initiation. In this paper, we have proposed algorithms to perform imperative and alternative handovers. Our proposed algorithms are efficient in terms of decrease in handover call drop rate and avoidance of ping-pong effect. To elongate the battery life of mobile station, we have proposed a power-based algorithm that will be triggered when the power of mobile station drops below a certain threshold. All of our proposed algorithms will increase user satisfaction in 4G networks in terms of received signal strength, QoS and conservation of battery life. Keywords 4G networks, alternative handover, imperative handover, QoS, user preference, utility based handover, vertical handover.

voice communication services to the users from anywhere and at any time [1]. To enable seamless roaming of users among these heterogeneous networks i.e. 4G networks, a process known as vertical handover is used [1], as shown in fig. 1 [2]. This process allows the users to be always best connected because at any given time, the users will be connected to a network that best suit their requirements. In 4G networks, the users will need to connect to a network whose signal strength is the strongest among the neighbouring networks; they may desire to handover to a network that is offering best services for the applications running on their Mobile Stations (MSs); or they may even require to handover to a large coverage area network to elongate the battery life of their MSs. When the handover is triggered on the basis of Received Signal Strength (RSS), it is known as imperative handover and when it is triggered to satisfy QoS requirements of the user, it is known as alternative handover [1].

I. INTRODUCTION In the current decade, wireless data access networks like IEEE 802.11x WLAN and IEEE 802.16e WMAN have been enhanced to provide very high data rates to end users to GPRS Network enable them to enjoy social network websites, play online games, download their favourite music files or videos, can communicate with others through video-conferencing and use other web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies. Another remarkable advancement of the current era is the evolution of mobile WLAN WLAN WLAN cellular networks from 1G analog (like AMPS) to 3G packet Vertical Handover Horizontal Handover switched networks (like WCDMA or UMTS). These 3G GPRS WLAN WLAN WLAN networks provide both voice and data services. However, the Fig. 1 Horizontal and Vertical Handovers [2] theoretical data rate of UMTS is 2Mbps for mobile users which is quite insufficient for todays network traffic demands. In order to satisfy users aforementioned requirements, we As wireless data access networks provide high data rate while have proposed three different algorithms to carry out cellular networks support high mobility of users, therefore, the imperative handover, alternative handover and power-based researchers proposed the integration of these co-existing handover. The first algorithm triggers handover when RSS networks to provide high speed Internet access along with drops below a threshold value. Thus, it will allow the users to

connect to a network having strongest RSS among the nearby networks. The second handover algorithm i.e. alternative handover algorithm evaluates the need of applications running on MS and handovers to a network that best fulfils the application requirements. It will facilitate the users to get best services for their MSs applications. The third algorithm is triggered when the power of the MS gets low. It prompts the user for performing handover and executes it on the user preference. This algorithm is beneficial for the users who want to conserve the battery power of their MSs. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explains vertical handover along with the existing approaches of vertical handover decision. Our proposed algorithms and their flowcharts are presented in section 3. The last section contains summary and future work. II. VERTICAL HANDOVER DESCRIPTION A. Vertical Handover Phases Traditionally, vertical handover takes place in three phases, namely: system discovery, handover decision and handover execution [1]. However, [3] and [4] have discussed several limitations when the handover occurs according to above mentioned phases. Therefore, they suggested reordering of vertical handover as: handover decision, system discovery and handover execution. Furthermore, for conserving power of MS, they proposed that the MS should activate interfaces for those networks under whose coverage area it is present. The information about nearby networks can be obtained by installing location aware functionality in both the MS and Base Stations (BS) or Access Points (AP); usually Global Positioning System (GPS) is used for the said purpose [5]. B. Vertical Handover Decision Parameters In 4G networks, multiple networks with varying characteristics are available to the users. Therefore, vertical handover can be triggered on the basis of several decision parameters like QoS, cost, user preference, network condition (like RSS, bit error rate, signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) etc) and MSs velocity, its moving pattern and power [6]. C. Prevention of ping-pong effect In 4G networks, the MS may perform unnecessary handovers whenever it detects a network better than the current one. This leads to a phenomenon known as ping pong effect [7]. To prevent the occurrence of ping pong effect, the concept of dwell timer is proposed in [8]. The dwell timer is used to check the stability of a network. If the network is stable i.e. it can provide its services even after the expiry of dwell timer, the vertical handover to this network is executed. It is proposed in [9] that the duration of dwell timer should not be static; its value should be adjusted in accordance with the movement of MS. In [10], the authors have proposed a mobile-velocity adaptive vertical handover that avoids ping pong effect by considering the velocity of MS. However, the authors have defined dwell time as the time a MS may spend within the coverage area of target network. A threshold value

for this dwell time is also defined and a MS performs handover to the target network, if the dwell time of that network is larger than the threshold value. D. Types of vertical handover The authors of [1, 11, 12] have proposed several types of vertical handovers. Among these types, the two prominent types of vertical handover are imperative and alternative handover. Imperative handover is an obligatory handover [12] as it is needed to maintain the connection of a MS with the network. It is triggered mainly on the basis of RSS, SINR or bit error rate [11]. Alternative handover, on the other hand, is important from users perspective. It is triggered to satisfy user preferences on the basis of QoS or cost [11]. Contrary to the traditional concept of imperative and alternative handovers mentioned above, [13] has defined imperative and alternative handover in a different way. According to [13], imperative handover is triggered on the basis of RSS, coverage area and QoS. The authors proposed that alternative handover is triggered on the basis of nontechnical issues like user preference in terms of price and incentives, services and context. E. Existing approaches for vertical handover decision Several schemes have been proposed that are used to take handoff decision on the basis of user preference, network condition (RSS or SINR, etc) and battery power. Like in [12], a vertical handoff decision function (VHDF) is proposed that takes into account network parameters including cost, security, power consumption of a network, network condition and network performance. The users assign weights to these factors and all the reachable networks are evaluated on the basis of VHDF. The network with highest VHDF value is selected as the target network for performing handover. In [14] a surplus based network selection algorithm is defined which enables the users to select a network which is offering lowest price among all the candidate networks for the users required services. The authors claim that their proposed scheme avoids network congestion and at the same time provides users required QoS and optimally utilizes resources of all the networks. In [15], a time adaptive vertical handover decision scheme is proposed that selects a target network on the basis of user preference and service requirements. For discovering reachable networks, interface activation is performed on the basis of two algorithms that dynamically adjust the time for activating interfaces on the basis of beacon signals. However, if a MS is not under the coverage area of a particular network, activating its interfaces for the corresponding network will be wastage of power. Moreover, the authors proposed three interfaces, one for network discovery, second for network selection and third for communication with a particular network provider for negotiation about the services he/she may provide. The authors claim that this process will avoid network congestion. However, a major limitation of this negotiation is that the user has to explicitly communicate with each network operator to determine the network that suits

his/her needs. This negotiation will consume quite lot of time and may cause delay in the handover process. Secondly, if all the candidate networks reject the handover request, the user again has to search the new network, which may lead to significant handover delay. We propose an alternative handover algorithm that selects a network according to users perceived requirements without bothering the user to negotiate about his/her required services with each network operator. III. PROPOSED VERTICAL HANDOVER ALGORITHMS This section describes our proposed vertical handover algorithms. Our proposed algorithms require that the GPS module should be installed on the MS to enable it to get the information about its location, moving direction and velocity [16]. The location information will be sent by the MS to its current Point of Attachment (PoA) (BS/AP) which in turn informs the MS about neighbouring PoAs, using its own location aware functionality [4]. The MS will then activate the interfaces for those networks only which are in its vicinity. This will prevent the activation of unnecessary interfaces and also conserve the power of MS. The information about the velocity and moving direction of MS will be used by our proposed algorithms to calculate the estimated residence time of the MS in a network. A network, for which the estimated residence time of the MS is less than the favourable residence time (), will not be considered as a candidate for handover. We suggest that the BSs/APs must broadcast the information about their coverage areas, services available and network load in their beacon signals. A high load signal from these PoAs will alert the MS about network load or congestion and thus the MS will not consider this network as a candidate for handover. This will surely decrease the handover call drop rate which mostly occurs when a congested network rejects the handover call and as a result, the call is dropped and the MS gets disconnected from the network. To ensure a seamless transfer of MS information from one BS/AP to another, the CTP [17] will be used. The information about header compression, QoS and Authorization, Authentication and Accounting (AAA) is sent to the new BS/AP by the old one through CTP before handover execution. Thus, it decreases the amount of time consumed which the MS needed to perform protocol exchange with the new BS/AP for allocating resources, after the handover is executed [18]. We have proposed three different algorithms namely imperative, alternative and power-based algorithms. Section III- A describes imperative handover; III-B explains alternative handover while III-C throws light at power-based handover. All these sub-sections contain the relevant flowcharts as well. Table 1 contains the legend for all the flowcharts and algorithms.
Table 1: Legend for flowcharts and algorithms RSScur RSSTh RSSCN Received signal strength of current network Threshold Received signal strength Received signal strength of candidate network

Ucur Ureq Unew ResTime

Value of utility function for current network Required utility function value Utility function value of reachable network Residence time in a network Favourable residence time Critical value of battery Dwell network RSS Dwell network ResTime timer for checking stability in terms of timer for checking stability in terms of

DTRSS

DTres

A. Proposed Imperative Handover Imperative handover is triggered when the network condition changes and the MS does not get sufficient signal strength from the current PoA (BS/AP) [11]. To continue an on going call, it is necessary to handover to a nearest PoA. If the handover is delayed, the call may be dropped and the MS may get disconnected from the network. It is also possible that only for a very short amount of time, the MS gets degradation in signal strength; may be due to an obstacle or a temporary network load. If the MS start triggering handover to another PoA as soon as signal strength degrades, it may lead to unnecessary handover calls for the network and a ping pong effect for the MS. Therefore, the MS should wait for a certain dwell time and check the network condition. If even after the expiry of dwell timer, the MS does not get sufficient signal strength, it should initiate the handover process. As mentioned earlier, the dwell timer should not be static rather it should be adaptive [9]. We have proposed an equation to adjust the amount of dwell time adaptively, according the signal strength it receives from the current network. The proposed equation is as follow: DTRSS = Tmin + (1- ((RSS Th RSScur)/RSSTh)) Eq. 1

where: DTRSS = Dwell timer according to RSS RSSTh = Threshold RSS RSScur = RSS of the current PoA Tmin = Default minimum amount of time that MS should wait for triggering handover Imperative handover takes place between PoAs of similar networks. It is possible that there is no homogeneous PoA in the vicinity of the PoA to which MS is currently connected. Therefore, to avoid disconnection for the MS, a vertical handover needs to be performed. For example, a MS may be connected to a WLAN when it experiences degradation in signal strength and another WLAN is not available in its vicinity. Therefore, the MS has to perform a vertical handover to a 3G or any other network. Our proposed imperative handover algorithm caters for both of these possibilities and performs a horizontal or vertical handover according to the situation. Algorithm 1 explains the proposed imperative handover.

Algorithm 1.Imperative Handover ( ) 1. If(RSScur < RSSTh) then 2. //Check the instability of current network 3. wait for DTRSS units 4. If (unstable) then 5. Discover the nearest PoAs 6. if(similar PoAs exist) then 7. Determine the network condition 8. Include non-congested PoAs into N 9. else If(nearest similar PoAs does not exist)then 10. Discover reachable networks 11. Determine the network condition 12. Include non-congested networks into N 13. For each Ni N 14. Calculate ResTime 15. If (ResTime > ) then 16. add Ni into RT 17. End Loop 18. Sort RT into descending order 19. For each RTi RT 20. If(RSSRTi >RSSTh ) then 21. wait for T min units 22. If(stable && not congested) then 23. Target network= RTi 24. Perform Context transfer 25. Execute HO 26. End loop 27. Else // Network is stable 28. Stay with the current network 29. Else // RSScur > RSSTh 30. Stay with the current network
RSScur<RSSTh Yes Check the instability using DT Stable No Stay with current network

Unstable Discover non-congested, homogeneous nearest PoAs If Exist? Yes ResTime > Yes Set of candidate networks (CN) Evaluate CNs in descending order No Discover non-congested, reachable networks

No

RSSCN > RSSTh & CN is Stable Yes Target Network Perform Context Transfer & Execute Handover Fig 2. Flowchart for imperative handover.

B. Proposed Alternative Handover 4G network aims at providing the services that are required by a user. Therefore, it facilitates the user to perform an alternative handover to get better services for the applications running on his/her MS. Our proposed alternative handover algorithm evaluates the services required by an application. If the application is not getting its required services, a handover is triggered. All the non-congested, reachable networks are discovered by activating only the relevant interfaces. The estimated residence time of the MS in each network is calculated. The networks for which the estimated residence time is greater than threshold value, , are then evaluated by our proposed utility function, as follows: U= X * ((B*WB)+(1/C* WC)+(1/P* WP)) where: X= SA * HLs X= exclusion factor SA = service available HLs = High load signal B = bandwidth available at the network C = cost of the service P = power consumed at the network WB, WC, WP are weights assigned by the user to Eq. 2

bandwidth, cost and power consumption respectively. The utility function takes into account the bandwidth, power consumption and cost of service of a network. User preferences are also involved in the utility function by allowing them to assign weights to these parameters. The sum of these weights will always be equal to one. Through an interface on the MS, the user can assign weights and he/she can also change these weights according to his/her requirements. For example, for non real time data, a user may prefer cost over bandwidth, but for smooth running of real time data, he may prefer bandwidth over cost. Our proposed Eq. 2 also includes exclusion factor (X) i.e. if the MS receives high load signal from a network, the value of HLs will be set to zero. As a result, the utility of that network will become zero. This indicates that the network is congested and can not provide the resources required by the application. Thus, the exclusion factor is used to exclude a network from the set of candidate networks. All the networks are evaluated and a set of candidate networks is made. Among the candidate networks, the network with highest value of utility function is selected and its stability in terms of RSS and available services is determined after the expiry of dwell-timer.

Algorithm 2.Alternative Handover ( )


Ucur < Ureq

No Yes Discover non-congested, homogeneous nearest PoAs

1. If (Ucur < Ureq) then 2. Discover reachable networks 3. Determine network condition 4. If (not congested) then 5. Include network into N 6. For each Ni N 7. Calculate ResTime 8. if (ResTime > ) then 9. Calculate the utility of Ni 10. If(UNi > Ureq) then 11. Include Ni into M 12. End loop 13. Sort M into descending order 14. For each Mi M 15. IF (RSSMi > RSSTh) then 16. Wait for DTres units 17. If (Stable) then 18. Target network= Mi 19. Perform Context transfer 20. Execute handover and exit 21. End Loop 22. Else // No need of handover 23. Stay connected with current network

Stay with current network

ResTime > && Unew > Ureq Yes Set of candidate networks (CN) Evaluate CNs in descending order No

RSSCN>RSSTh & CN is Stable Yes Target Network Perform Context Transfer & Execute Handover Fig. 3 Flowchart for alternative handover.

This dwell timer is adaptive in terms of residence time and value of utility function, and is calculated as follows: DTres = Tmin + (((ResTime- )/ ) * (1/UNi)) Eq. 3

Where DTres = Dwell Timer according to residence time and network utility ResTime = residence time in the candidate network. = favourable residence time UNi = networks utility value Even after the expiry of this dwell timer, the network can still provide the required resources, the network is considered as stable. Necessary context transfer is then performed using CTP [16] and the handover is executed. All candidate networks are not evaluated for checking stability and only the network with highest utility is evaluated, therefore, less amount of time and power is consumed. The proposed alternative handover is explained in algorithm 2. C. Proposed Power-Based Handover Power is an important resource for all kind of portable devices like laptops, MSs and PDAs etc. Therefore, certain measures should be taken to conserve the power and to elongate its life-time. Usually wireless networks (WLAN or WiMax) consume more power as compared to cellular networks. Therefore, if a MS is connected to the wireless network, it may wish to handover to a cellular network to elongate its battery life. We have developed an algorithm that is triggered when the battery life of MS drops below a certain threshold (). The user may assign a value to this threshold or the algorithm can use the default value for it. When the power-based handover is triggered, first of all the current

network of the MS is determined. If it is a cellular network, the user is prompted to recharge the battery. In case of wireless network, the user is prompted to enter his/her choice of discard, allowed or deferred. If he/she wants to defer the handover, e.g. to complete the downloading of his/her required files; he/she then specifies the amount of time for which the handover is postponed. After the expiry of this time, the algorithm executes the handover. In case, user allowed to handover, the algorithm executes the handover immediately. It is also possible that the user does not wish to handover to another network. So, he/she may discard the handover. As a result, the MS will remain connected to the wireless network. Algorithm 3 represents our proposed algorithm. A flowchart of this algorithm is also presented in fig. 4. IV. SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK Current cellular networks (including 2.5G and 3G networks) do not involve user preference in handover process. For this reason, user preference is an important decision criterion for next generation networks. Users mostly require good QoS for their MSs applications. They also require that their MSs should automatically connect to a network offering good QoS, whenever such a network is available. However, the handover process should be seamless enough without affecting the applications executing on MSs. Our proposed alternative handover algorithm caters for user preferences in terms of cost, bandwidth and power consumption of a network. Users are allowed to set preferences for these parameters and the reachable networks are evaluated according to users priorities.

Algorithm 3.Power-Based Handover ( ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. If (power < ) then Determine current network If (cellular network) Prompt to charge battery Stay connected with current network Else // in case of wireless network Take user choice (Allow, Defer, discard) If (discard) then Stay connected with current network If (allow) then Go to step no. 14 If (defer) then Wait for deferred unit times Discover the reachable BSs Determine the network condition If (not congested) then Include PoA into N For each Ni N Calculate ResTime If (ResTime > ) then add Ni into RT End Loop Sort RT into descending order For each RTi RT If (RSSRTi > RSSTh ) then wait for Tmin units If (stable && not congested) then Target network= RTi Perform Context transfer Execute handover and exit End Loop Else // power > Stay connected with current network
Power < Yes Determine network No Stay with current network

Cellular network

Prompt to charge battery

Wireless network Discard User choice Allow Defer Wait for Tu unit times Discover non-congested, nearest BSs

ResTime > Set of candidate networks (CN) Evaluate CNs in descending order No RSSCN > RSSTh & CN is Stable Yes Target Network Perform Context Transfer & Execute Handover Fig. 4 Flowchart for power based handover

The network with best QoS among all the networks is selected for handover. We have also proposed an algorithm for performing imperative handover which will allow the users to always receive sufficient signal strength for their MSs. Whenever signal strength decreases, imperative handover to another PoA is performed. To facilitate the users to elongate their MSs power, a power-based algorithm is proposed. This algorithm will determine the power of MS and will prompt the user to allow handover to a less power consuming network. Currently, we have not simulated any of our proposed algorithms. In future, we will analyse our proposed algorithm in terms of processing time, efficiency, handover call drop rate and handover delay. Our current utility function for incorporating user preferences does not include user preference for a particular network operator. Therefore, we will improve our utility function to involve this parameter as well. Moreover, power-based algorithm prompts user for amount of delay for handover execution. The user usually delays handover for certain amount of time in which his/her important files can be downloaded. It is possible to improve the power-based algorithm to estimate the handover execution delay by determining the files currently downloading and estimating the time in which they can be fully downloaded and thus defers handover execution until the the downloading completes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Ms Mahrukh Fida and Mr. Waheed-ur-Rehman for their moral support and valuable suggestions during the course of this research. REFERENCES
[1] E. Stevens-Navarro and V. Wong. Comparison between Vertical Handoff Decision Algorithms for Heterogeneous Wireless Networks," in Proc. of IEEE VTC'06-spring. Melbourne, Australia. May 2006. F. Siddiqui, S. Zeadally, "An efficient wireless network discovery scheme for heterogeneous access environments", International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications, (2008). Vol. 4 Iss: 1, pp.50 60. W.T. Chen et al.Active Application oriented vertical handoff in NextGeneration Wireless Networks. In proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communication and Networking Conference (WCNC). 2005. pp.13-17. T. Salam, et al, Seamless Proactive Vertical Handover Algorithm, accepted at 8th International Conference on information technology: new generations. Dated April 11-13. Las Vegas, USA. 2011. M. Yliantttila, J. Makela, K. Pahlavan. Analysis of handoff in a location-aware vertical multi-access network. Computer Networks: The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking - Wireless IP through integration of wireless LAN and cellular networks. Volume 47, Issue 2, 4 February 2005, pp., 185-201.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

F. A. Zdarsky and J. B. Schmitt. 2004. Handover in Mobile Communication Networks: Who is in Control Anyway? Proceedings of the 30th EUROMICRO Conference. pp 205 - 212. ISBN ~ ISSN:1089-6503 , 0-7695-2199-1 D. Lee, Y. Han, J. Hwang. QoS Based Vertical Handoff Decision Algorithm in Heterogeneous Systems. In proceedings of 17th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications. 2006. M. Yliantttila, M. Pande, J. Makela, P. Mahonen. Optimization Scheme for Mobile Users performing vertical handoffs between IEEE 802.11 and GPRS/EDGE Networks. In proceedings of IEEE Global Telecommunication Conference (GLOBECOM), USA. 2001. W. Lee, E. Kim, J. Kim, I. Lee, C. Lee. Movement-aware Vertical handoff of WLAN and Mobile WiMAX for seamless ubiquitous access. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics. vol. 53. 2007. B. Cha, et al. 2008. Mobile-Velocity adaptive vertical handoff in integrated WLAN and WiBro networks. ISBN: 978-0-7695-3407-7. Zhang, W., Jaehnert, J. and Dolzer, K.: Design and Evaluation of a Handover Decision Strategy for 4th Generation Mobile Networks. In: Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference VTC-Spring, Jeju, Korea, IEEE Press, (2003). N. Nasser, Hasswa, A. Hassanein, H. 2006. Handoffs in fourth generation heterogeneous networks. IEEE Communication magazine. Volume: 44, Issue: 10. pp. 96-103.

[13]

[7]

[14]

[8]

[15]

[9]

[16]

[10] [11]

[17] [18]

G. Mapp, F. Shaikh, M. Aiash, R.P. Vanni, M. Augusto, E. Moreira. Exploring Efficient Imperative Handover Mechanisms for Heterogeneous Wireless Networks. In proc. of International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems, 2009. NBIS '09. Indianapolis, IN. pp. 286 291. ISBN: 978-1-4244-4746-6 H. Chan, et al. A utility based network selection scheme for multiple services in heterogeneous networks. International Conference on Wireless Networks, Communications and Mobile Computing. vol.2, pp. 1175 1180. 2005. Q. Song, A. Jamalipour. A time adaptive vertical handoff decision scheme in wireless overlay networks. IEEE 17th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications. 2006. ISBN: 1-4244-0329-4. Feng He Furong Wang. Position Aware Vertical Handoff Decision Algorithm in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks. Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, WiCOM '08. 4th International Conference. 2008. J. Loughney et al. Context Transfer Protocol. 2004. Internet draft, draft-ietf-seamoby-ctp-11.txt, work in progress. J. Kempf, Ed., 2002. Problem Description: Reasons for Performing Context Transfers Between Nodes in an IP Access Network. IETF RFC 3374.

[12]

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi