Therefore, to facilitate the delivery of packets to an MN following an incoming handover without an additional packet tunnel header, a temporary HNP (tHNP) is used, along with an IP address swapping mechanism at the mMAG and LMA.
Existing solutions for Internet access by mobile users – Mobile IPv6, and its enhancements such as HMIPv6, F-HMIPv6 and HCF – have been designed to improve the handover latency without any light weight security considerations.
Furthermore, data packets were delivered to the MN as real-time as possible even during the actual handover period without any need for buffering either at the source or target access.
Fig. 8 Procedure for intra‐GW handover without X2 support.
Figure 8 shows the procedure for an intra‐GW handover without the support of an X2 connection.
In this paper, we added an analysis for initial attachment procedure and the handover without X2 support (S1 handover) procedure for the traditional LTE/EPC architecture.
This is done by eliminating the authentication process on TMAG and performing the handover without the involvement of the LMA, which may be located far from the HMNs.
Depending on whether the X2 interface (the interface between the eNBs) is supported or not, the handover in the OEPC architecture is handled either as a handover with X2 support or a handover without X2 support.
Finally, the total signalling load at the Openflow controller in the case of unicast paging is simply the sum of Equations (8)–(12), (12) for handover with X2 support or (13) for handover without X2 support, and (14).
For multicast paging support, the corresponding value will be the sum of Equations (1), (2), (4), (5) for handover with X2 support or (6) for handover without X2 support, and (7).
