13.07.2015 Views

Praise for Fundamentals of WiMAX

Praise for Fundamentals of WiMAX

Praise for Fundamentals of WiMAX

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

266 Chapter 7 • Networking and Services Aspects <strong>of</strong> Broadband Wireless• In addition to physical-layer and MAC-layer mechanisms to support hand<strong>of</strong>f, there is aneed to deploy mobile IP to support transfer <strong>of</strong> ongoing IP connections across subnets in a<strong>WiMAX</strong> networks. Enhancements to mobile IP are needed to achieve seamless sessioncontinuity.• TCP was not designed <strong>for</strong> running over noisy and bandwidth constrained links and henceper<strong>for</strong>ms poorly over wireless links. A number <strong>of</strong> potential solutions to this problem areavailable.• Header compression can improve throughput efficiency <strong>of</strong> bandwidth-constrained wirelesslinks. The <strong>WiMAX</strong> standard has support <strong>for</strong> robust header compression.7.7 Bibliography[1] I. F. Akyildiz, J. McNair, J. S. M. Ho, H. Uzunalioglu, and W. Wang. Mobility management in nextgeneration wireless systems. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the IEEE, 87(8): August 1999.[2] I. F. Akyildiz, J. Xie, and S. Mohanty. A survey <strong>of</strong> mobility management in next-generation all-IPbasedwireless systems. IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine, 11(4):16–28, August 2004.[3] M. Allman. Increasing TCP’s initial window. IETF RFC 2414. September 1998.[4] J. Arkko et al. Using IPSec to protect mobile IPv6 signalling between mobile nodes and home agents.IETF RFC 3776. June 2004.[5] G. Armitage. Quality <strong>of</strong> Service in IP Networks. Sams, 2001.[6] A. Bakre and B.R. Badrinath. I-TCP: Indirect TCP <strong>for</strong> mobile hosts. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 15th InternationalConference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). May 1995.[7] H. Balakrishna, et al. A comparison <strong>of</strong> mechanisms <strong>for</strong> improving TCP per<strong>for</strong>mance over wirelesslinks. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> ACM/IEEE Mobicom, pp. 77–89, September 1997.[8] H. Balakrishna et al. Improving TCP/IP per<strong>for</strong>mance over wireless networks. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> ACM/IEEE Mobicom. November 1995.[9] L. Blunk and J. Vollbrecht. PPP extensible authentication protocol (EAP). IETF RFC 2284. March1998.[10] C. Borman et al. Robust header compression (ROHC): Framework and four pr<strong>of</strong>iles: RTP, UDP, ESP,uncompressed. IETF RFC 3095. July 2001.[11] R. Braden et al. Resource reservation protocol. IETF RFC 2205. September 1997.[12] L. Brakmo and L. Peterson. TCP Vegas: End to end congestion avoidance on a global internet. IEEEJournal on Selected Areas in Communication, 13(8):1465–1480, October 1995.[13] P. Calhoun et al. Diameter in use. IETF RFC 3588. September 2003.[14] A. T. Campbell et al. Comparison <strong>of</strong> IP micromobility protocols. IEEE Wireless CommunicationsMagazine, 9(1):72-82, February 2002.[15] S. Casner. Compressing IP/UDP/RTP headers <strong>for</strong> low speed serial links. IETF RFC 2508. February1999.[16] F. M. Chiussi, D.A. Khotimsky, and S. Krishnan. Mobility management in third generation all-IP Networks.IEEE Communications Magazine, 40(9):124–135, September 2002.[17] J. Daemen and V. Rijmen, The Design <strong>of</strong> Rijndael: AES—The Advanced Encryption Standard.Springer-Verlag, 2002.[18] S. Deering. ICMP router discovery messages. IETF RFC 1256. September 1991.[19] M. Degermark. IP header compression. IETF RFC 2507. February 1999.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!