Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

DOI 10.1007/s10776-013-0213-9

A Survey on Media Independent Handover (MIH) and IP

Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) in Heterogeneous Wireless
Networks
Omar Khattab Omar Alani

Received: 12 February 2013 / Accepted: 7 June 2013 / Published online: 20 June 2013
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract One challenge of wireless networks integration

is to provide ubiquitous wireless access abilities and
seamless handover for mobile communication devices
between different types of technologies (3GPP and non3GPP), such as Global System for Mobile Communication,
Wireless Fidelity, Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System and Long Term Evolution. This challenge is critical as
mobile users are becoming increasingly demanding for
services regardless of the technological complexities
associated with them. To fulfil these requirements for
seamless vertical handover (VHO) two main interworking
frameworks have been proposed by IEEE Group and 3GPP
for integration between the aforementioned technologies;
namely, Media Independent Handover IEEE 802.21 and IP
Multimedia Subsystem, where each of them requires
mobility management protocol to complement its work,
such as Mobile IP and Session Initiation Protocol, respectively. Various VHO approaches have been proposed in the
literature based on these frameworks. In this paper, we
survey the VHO approaches proposed in the literature and
classify them into four categories based on these frameworks for which we present their objectives and performances issues.
Keywords Vertical handover (VHO)
Media
Independent Handover (MIH)
IP Multimedia Subsystem
(IMS)
Heterogeneous wireless networks
O. Khattab (&)
O. Alani
School of Computing, Science & Engineering, University of
Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT, UK
e-mail: o.khattab@edu.salford.ac.uk
O. Alani
e-mail: o.y.k.alani@salford.ac.uk

1 Introduction
With the advancement of wireless communication and
computer technologies, mobile communication has been
providing more versatile, portable and affordable networks
services than ever. Therefore, the number of users of mobile
communication networks has increased rapidly as an
example; it has been reported that today, there are billions
of mobile phone subscribers, close to five billion people with
access to television and tens of millions of new internet users
every year [1] and there is a growing demand for services
over broadband wireless networks due to diversity of services which can not be provided with a single wireless network anywhere anytime [26]. This fact means that
heterogeneous environment of wireless systems, such as
Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM), Wireless
Fidelity (Wi-Fi), Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave
Access (WiMAX) and Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) will coexist providing mobile users
(MUs) with roaming capability across different networks.
One of the challenging issues in Next Generation Wireless
Systems (NGWS) is achieving seamless vertical handover
(VHO) while roaming between these technologies; therefore, telecommunication operators will be required to
develop a strategy for interoperability of these different types
of existing networks to get the best connection anywhere
anytime without interruption to the ongoing sessions. To
fulfill these requirements for seamless VHO two main
interworking frameworks have been proposed by IEEE
Group and 3GPP for integration between the different types
of technologies (3GPP and non-3GPP); namely, Media
Independent Handover IEEE 802.21 (MIH) and IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), where each of them requires
mobility management protocol to complement its work, such
as Mobile IP (MIP) and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP),

123

216

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

respectively. Although researches about VHO under MIH

and IMS frameworks have been surveyed recently in [7],
highlights on their objectives and performances issues have
not been considered yet. In this paper, we survey the VHO
approaches proposed in the literature and classify them into
four categories based on these frameworks for which we
present their objectives and performances issues.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2
describes the VHO procedure, in Sect. 3, we overview
available techniques of VHO: interworking architectures,
mobility management protocols, access network discovery
and selection function (ANDSF) mechanism, MIH framework and IMS framework. In Sect. 4, we classify VHO
approaches proposed in the literature into four categories
based on MIH and IMS frameworks. In Sect. 5, comparison of the VHO approaches is presented and finally, we
conclude the paper in Sect. 6.

Evolution (LTE), these different RATs have significant

different capabilities in terms of system capacity, supported
data rate for services, coverage area, cost, etc. For example,
The UMTS provides high coverage area, high cost and data
rate from 144 Kbps to 2 Mbps at 10 km/h to maximum
500 km/h depending on propagation channel condition,
while Wi-Fi provides low coverage area, low cost and high
data rate from 1 to 54 Mbps at 30 m to maximum 450 m
[3]. Therefore, complementarity of these technologies
through interworking architectures is essential to provide
ubiquitous wireless access abilities with high coverage
area, high data rate and low cost to MUs. Consequently, the
challenge would be the ability to move MUs seamlessly
between these different types of wireless technologies. To
fulfil these requirements for seamless VHO many techniques were proposed for integration between the aforementioned technologies; these are discussed next.

2 Vertical Handover Procedure

3.1 Loose and Tight Coupling Interworking

Architectures

The mechanism which allows the MUs to continue their

ongoing sessions when moving within the same radio
access technology (RAT) coverage areas or traversing
different RATs, is named horizontal handover and VHO,
respectively. In the literature VHO procedure has been
divided into three phases: collecting information, decision
and execution [815] as described below.
2.1 Handover Collecting Information
In this phase, all required information for VHO decision is
gathered, some related to the user preferences (e.g. cost,
security), network (e.g. latency, coverage) and terminal
(e.g. battery, velocity).
2.2 Handover Decision
In this phase, the best RAT based on aforementioned
information is selected and the handover execution phase is
informed about that.

Loose coupling and tight coupling are two main interworking architectures proposed by European Telecommunication
Standards Institute (ETSI) in 2001 [16] for integrating
between the different types of technologies [17].
3.1.1 Loose Coupling
In loose coupling architecture, each of the existing access
wireless networks, such as UMTS, Wi-Fi and WiMAX is
independently deployed. Both of WiMAX and Wi-Fi data do
not pass through 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
core network this in turn means, there is no need to modify
current architecture, no additional cost and the interworking
point occurs after 3GPP core network in particular, follow
Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN) with internet. Also,
the networks interconnection in this architecture based on
MIP as for roaming service the authentication, authorization
and accounting (AAA) server connects between different
RATs which allows the Wi-Fi and WiMAX data go directly
to the internet without requiring for direct link between their
components and 3GPP core network [18].

2.3 Handover Execution

3.1.2 Tight Coupling
In this phase, the active session for the MU will be maintained and continued on the new RAT; after that, the
resources of the old RAT are eventually released.

3 Background of Networking Techniques

The NGWS will consist of heterogeneous wireless access
networks, such as UMTS, Wi-Fi, WiMAX and Long Term

123

In tight coupling architecture, the Wi-Fi and WiMAX data

pass through 3GPP core network before going to the
internet and significant modifications of existing access
wireless networks are necessary for providing seamless
service to the MU to move from one network to another
[18], this in turn impacts the 3GPP core network performance in terms of complexity, congestion and packet loss
due to the overload. The networks interconnection in this

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

architecture is based on the existing 3GPP core network

functionalities (e.g., core network resources, subscriber
databases and billing systems) that ensure MUs to continue
their ongoing sessions when moving within different
RATs. There are two types of tight coupling [6]:

Tight coupling integration at GGSN level.

Tight coupling integration at the RNC level.

Tight coupling integration at GGSN level.

In this architecture, all of the RATs are connected
together by Virtual GPRS Support Node (VGSN)
which is responsible to exchange subscriber information and route packets between the wireless
access networks, the handover duration (latency) is
equivalent with loose coupling where MIP is used
(no need of MIP functionalities) and it requires less
complexity modification in 3GPP core network
[18].
Tight coupling integration at the RNC level.
In this architecture, access point (AP) and base
station (BS) in Wi-Fi and WiMAX respectively are
connected with Radio Network Controller (RNC)
by interworking unit (IWU). The IWU main
functionality is to translate protocol and signalling
exchange between RNC and another RATs interface, such as AP and BS [6].

3.2 Mobility Management Protocols

The mobility management has gained importance due to
the rapidly increasing number of MUs requesting services
over broadband wireless networks. Mobility management
has enabled MUs to maintain their ongoing sessions particularly when traversing between different RATs (3GPP
and non-3GPP). In order to fulfill these requirements for
seamless mobility the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) was produced mobility management protocols;
these can be classified into five types [19]:
3.2.1 Mobile IP (Mobile IPv4, Mobile IPv6)
MIPv4 and MIPv6 are the best standard for handling wide
mobility in IP based networks (macro-mobility) such that
MUs traversing different RATs and keeping two IP addresses one for identification and the other for routing [19].
3.2.2 Cellular IP and Handover Aware Wireless Access
Internet Infrastructure (HAWAII)
Unlike MIP protocols, this type of protocols is suitable for
local movements (micro-mobility) such that MUs roaming
within same RATs coverage areas [19].

217

3.2.3 Host Identity Protocol (HIP)

A new name space used between the IP layer and the
transport protocols. The namespace separates IP addresses
and the host identifier [19].
3.2.4 Virtual Internet Protocol (VIP)
It is a virtual IP layer that uses the principle of a virtual
network address and a physical network address to Internet
naming [19].
3.2.5 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
It is defined to support real-time multimedia services in
mobile networks at application layer such that handles both
pre-session mobility and mid-session mobility management.
However, the most common protocols used for mobility
in VHO are the MIPv4, MIPv6, SIP and HIP [20].
3.3 Access Network Discovery and Selection Function
(ANDSF) Mechanism
The 3GPP group proposed ANDSF in 2008 (Release 8)
[21] to provide a seamless VHO between different RATs
and to mitigate the impacts of radio signals impairment
between 3GPP and non 3GPP. In this mechanism, there is
no need to the measurements reports between the different
RATs, and hence, no need to the modification on legacy
radio systems (no additional cost).The ANDSF also works
as store of RATs information that is queried by MU to
make handover decision. This information about neighbor
cells, operators policies and preferences, QoS, capabilities, etc. [22]. In [23], new logical element proposed named
forward authentication function (FAF), it was collocated
with the ANDSF and located in the target network. FAF
plays the role of target RAT to perform its functionalities,
e.g. if the MU moves toward 3GPP E-UTRAN, the FAF
emulates Node-B, while if the MU moves toward WiMAX,
the FAF emulates WiMAX BS. The FAF has two main
goals: first, to enable the transmission from WiMAX to
3GPP (Authentication). Second, to avoid direct link
between 3GPP and WiMAX, i.e. avoid the WiMAX
access scheduling measurement opportunities to the MU in
order to measure neighbor 3GPP sites [23]. Nevertheless,
the authors in [23] lacked to tackle two vital aspects in the
VHO procedure: first, the source network was not informed
by MU about its movement to the target network which
resulted in packet losses and second, it lacked releasing
procedure for the resources of the network. In [24], the
Data Forwarding Function (DFF) logical entity located in
source network was proposed to solve the problems that
were raised in [23].

123

218

3.4 Media Independent Handover (MIH) Framework

The IEEE Group released IEEE 802.21 standard MIH in
2009 to provide seamless VHO between heterogeneous
networks that include both wireless (3GPP and non-3GPP)
and wired media [2532]. IEEE 802.21 defines two entities: first, Point of Service (PoS) which is responsible for
establishing communication between the network and the
MU under MIH and second, Point of Attachment (PoA)
which is the RAT AP. Also, MIH provides three main
services: Media Independent Event Service (MIES), Media
Independent Command Service (MICS) and Media Independent Information Service (MIIS) [33] such that MIH
relies on the presence of mobility management protocols,
such as MIP and SIP, this is shown in Fig. 1.
3.4.1 Media Independent Event Service (MIES)
It is responsible for reporting the events after detecting, e.g.
link up on the connection (established), link down (broken), link going down(breakdown imminent), etc. [34].

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

MIH handover initiate, MIH handover prepare, MIH

handover commit and MIH handover complete [34].
However no handover decision is made within MIH
[35], the actual algorithms to be implemented are left to
the designers [36] and the security for re-authentication at
the target network and implementation of the decision
algorithm are out of the scope of MIH [26].
3.5 IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Framework
The IMS was introduced in 2002 by 3GPP (Released 5) to
support multimedia services in UMTS [3740] and provides access security to IMS. However, it started supporting multimedia service for both wireless (3GPP and non3GPP) and wired networks in Release 7 [41]. The IMS is
defined as a 3-layer architecture consisting of transport
layer, control layer and application layer, this is shown in
Fig. 3.
3.5.1 Transport Layer

It is responsible for collecting all information required to

identify if a handover is needed or not and provide them to
MUs, e.g. available networks, locations, capabilities, cost,
etc. [34], this is shown in Fig. 2.

It includes all the entities for the supported access networks

which allow IMS devices and MUs connect the IMS
through many types of access networks, e.g. Wideband
Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), UMTS, Wi-Fi,
WiMAX, Ethernet, digital subscriber line etc. Also it
allows the IMS device to receive/send call either through
the public switched telephone network (PSTN) or the
media gateway (MGW) [42].

3.4.3 Media Independent Command Service (MICS)

3.5.2 Control Layer

It is responsible for issuing the commands based on the

information which is gathered by MIIS and MIES, e.g.

This layer includes three SIP signaling servers that are

known as Call Session Control Functions (CSCFs) which

3.4.2 Media Independent Information Service (MIIS)

Fig. 1 Media Independent

Handover (MIH) [34]

123

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

219

Media Independent Information Service

(MIIS)

Available of PoAs (GSM, UMTS, Wi-Fi, WiMAX..)

Locations of PoAs
Cost
QoS
Capabilities of PoAs
Operator ID
Security

RATs

Wi-Fi

UMTS

WiMAX

MUs

Fig. 2 Media Independent Information Service (MIIS) passing information about RATs to Mobile Users (MUs)

are responsible for establishing, managing and terminating

media sessions. Also it includes another entities i.e. Home
Subscriber Service (HSS), breakout gateway control function (BGCF), Media Gateway Control Function (MGCF),
Media Resource Function Controller (MRFC), Multimedia
Resource Function Processor (MRFP) [42], this shown in
Table 1.
3.5.3 Application Layer
In this layer the AS is responsible for hosting and executing
all the services offered by IMS.
However, in this framework handover decision is out of
its scope and unlike the MIH framework the MU obliges to
discover neighbor cells with no assistance by periodically
conducting a radio scanning in the background which
results in:

Limited information is discovered.

The MU needs two receivers work concurrently one for
scanning and another for ongoing session, while one
receiver may be incurred probability of missing data
from serving cell.
High MU power consumption.
Upgrades legacy cells (2G/3G) due to broadcast
information about 4G neighbors cells, such as WiMAX
and LTE.

4 Vertical Handover Approaches Classifications

In this section, we classify VHO approaches proposed in
the literature into four categories based on MIH and IMS
frameworks in order to present their objectives and

123

220

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

Fig. 3 Application, control and

transport layers of an IP
Multimedia Subsystem (IMS)
[42]

Application Layer

Application Servers
Control Layer

Session Control

Transport Layer

IP
Routers
PSTN

Media Gateway

Table 1 Control layer of an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS)

Components

Roles

Breakout Gateway Control Function (BGCF)

Select the network in which the connection to the PSTN will be made

Home Subscriber Service (HSS)

Database stores user authorization and profile information which is

queried by SCSCF server for providing the service to the user

Interrogating-Call Session Control Functions (I-SCSF)

Assigning a S-CSCF to a user

SIP registration
Generating charging data records
Acting as a Topology Hiding Interworking Gateway (THIG)

Media Gateway Control Function (MGCF)

Media Resource Function Controller (MRFC)

Sends or receives calls to/from the PSTN/Circuit-Switched Network

Controls the MRFP to provide media processing required by the
Application Servers (ASs)

Multimedia Resource Function Processor (MRFP)

Performs all of the media processing required, such as conferencing,

voice mail, etc

Proxy-Call Session Control Functions (P-CSCF)

Authorizing the bearer resources for the appropriate QoS level

Monitoring
Emergency calls
Header compression

Serving-Call Session Control Functions (S-CSCF)

Interrogating-CSCF (I-CSCF) identification

It provides routing services, typically using Electronic Numbering
(ENUM) lookups
It inspects every message as it sits on the path of all signaling
messages
It enforces the policy of the network operator

123

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

performances issues. We identify the four categories as:

MIH based category, IMS based category, MIP under IMS
based category and finally, MIH and IMS combination
based category.
4.1 MIH Category
Many VHO approaches have been proposed in the literature applied in conjunction with MIPv4 and MIPv6 under
MIH [2, 25 and 43] and [35, 4447], respectively [48]. In
[2], the authors proposed an approach called tunneling
mechanism to guarantee the continuity of service during a
communication session in heterogeneous wireless technologies between Wi-Fi, WiMAX and 3G technologies
such that a set of components organized in three layers
which offered the MU the possibility to monitor its
resources and its network performance. The Radio Signal
Strength (RSS), link layer throughput, link quality, loss rate
and contention rate parameters were considered to make
VHO decision. The implementation of their approach
which was in real environment by Meditel Telecommunication operator in Morocco shown throughput (KBite/s)
and latency (ms) considering streaming traffic for WiMAX,
Wi-Fi and 3G were (62.24,60.48, 55.99) and (20.1, 22.4,
46.2), respectively [2].
In [25], the authors presented the integration process of
MIH with Wi-Fi, WiMAX and UMTS scenarios in order to
provide seamless VHO with low latency and zero packet
loss. The RSS parameter was considered to make VHO
decision before source PoA link was disconnected due to
fading RSS. The latency was divided into two phases:
handover preparation latency (HPL) and handover execution latency (HEL). The HPL was the time interval in
which the MU queried the MIIS about available RATs for
handover, the HEL was the time since the MU sent/
received authentication messages to its target network (new
PoA) until the reception of the first packet on the target
network. The ns-2 simulator was used considering two
types of traffic IPTV and VoIP. The results for handover
between Wi-Fi and WiMAX shown that HPL was
*125 ms, HEL was 45 ms and jitter was 1.5 ms, and for
handover between WiMAX and UMTS results shown that
latency due to HPL was *36 ms, HEL was 110 ms and
jitter was 4.3 ms. Finally, handover between UMTS and
Wi-Fi results shown that HPL was *31 ms, HEL was
48 ms and jitter was 6.3 ms [25], while no performance
evaluation provided regarding packet loss.
In [35], a new approach that combined MIH and
ANDSF mechanism was proposed for improving the VHO
behavior such that the ANDSF is an entity produced by
3GPP to provide seamless VHO between different RATs.
The aim of the proposed approach was to eliminate packet
loss and improve the resource release mechanism in the

221

source access network between WiMAX and LTE scenario. However; no evaluations or validation about the
work has been provided.
In [43], the authors presented MIH vertical handover
approach in order to provide seamless VHO with low
latency, they also presented MIH Layer 2 (MIH L2) trigger
handover decision algorithm based on RSS taking into
account Wi-Fi and WiMAX scenario. Analytical modeling
and ns-2 simulator were used considering FTP traffic. The
result shown that latency was considerably reduced compared with MIPv4 through the pre-registration process
using the L2 trigger.
In [44], the authors presented fast handover approach for
heterogeneous networks that utilized MIH with Proxy
Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) to support heterogeneous networks
performance between Wi-Fi and WiMAX scenario taking
into account RSS to make VHO decision. The analytical
modeling results shown that the proposed approach
reduced latency time by 26 % and packet losses by 90 %
[44].
In [45], the authors presented evaluations for VHO
process using MIH and considering Wi-Fi, WiMAX and
UMTS scenarios. Constant bit rate (CBR) traffic was used
in order to evaluate VHO latency, throughput and packet
loss in an ns-2 simulator. RSS and network capacity
parameters were considered to make VHO decision. The
Results shown the Wi-Fi offered the highest throughput,
reaching up to 28.2 Mbps. Then WiMAX offered up to
11 Mbps, while UMTS offered a 2.04 Mbps data rate.
Concerning latency, the UMTS took an average of
29.96 ms to deliver one packet, whereas WiMAX and WiFi offered lower latencies: 0.81 and 0.23 ms, respectively.
Finally, the packet loss between seven VHO scenarios was
considered: Wi-Fi(1)-WiMAX(1), Wi-Fi(2)-WiMAX(2),
WiMAX(1)-Wi-Fi(1), WiMAX(1)-UMTS, WiMAX(2)UMTS,
UMTS-Wi-Fi(2)
and
UMTS-WiMAX(1)
(81,0,0,679,664,0,0), respectively [45].
In [46] a new approach that enabled seamless VHO
handovers in wireless heterogeneous environments was
presented. The proposed approach combined the MIPv6
mobility management protocol, the MIH, and a mobility
control entity to perform VHO with minimal packet loss
and latency between Wi-Fi and 3G (HSPA) scenario taking
into account the RSS parameter to make VHO decision.
The Network Mobility Manager (MM_NET) and Mobile
Node Mobility Manger (MM_MN) were two logical entities developed in the proposed approach. The MM_NET
was the network entity that controls, with the help of
MM_MN which placed on the MU device. The authors
divided the latency into two periods: handover latency
(HL) and HEL. The HL was the time interval in which the
MU did not receive any packets as a result of handover
until the first packet received by target network (new PoA),

123

222

the HEL was the time since the MU sent a binding update
to its home agent until the reception of the first packet on
the new target network. Testbed experiment was developed
considering two types of traffic video and VoIP. The results
shown that latency was zero when using video or VoIP
traffic at HL, while at HEL was *0.5 s, whereas packet
loss was *0.18 % [46].
In [47], the authors presented analytical modeling of
VHO latency for PMIPv6 under MIH between Wi-Fi and
WiMAX scenario in [49], [50] taking into account RSS to
make VHO decision. The analytical results shown that L2
latency was *50 ms, while between MU and source network/target network was 50150 ms [47].

4.2 IMS Category

In the literature there are many approaches which have been
proposed about VHO based on SIP under IMS [5154].
In [51], the authors presented an internetworking
approach to provide the continuity of service during and
after VHO session while moving between Wi-Fi and
UMTS scenario. The OPNET simulator was used considering VoIP traffic and result shown that latency was
*150 ms [51].
In [52], the authors presented two WiMAX-3G interworking approaches: the loosely coupled WiMAX-cellular
(LCWC) and the tightly coupled WiMAX-cellular
(TCWC) based on loosely and tightly coupling interworking architectures, respectively, to investigate the
effects of these interworking architectures on the SIP-based
IMS registration and session setup procedures such that
tight coupling required significant modifications of existing
access network for providing seamless service to MU to
move from one network to another which resulted in
additional cost. Also they analyzed the effects of their
WiMAX-3G interworking approach on the IMS signaling
latency. Analytical modeling and ns-2 simulator were used
considering VoIP, MPEG, FTP, and HTTP traffics. The
results shown that the IMS registration latency for WiMAX
in the TCWC architecture was lower than in the LCWC
architecture, whereas The IMS registration latency for 3G
was the same for both TCWC and LCWC, Also, the IMS
session setup latency in the TCWC architecture was lower
than latency in the LCWC architecture when the SN
(source node) was in a 128 kbps 3G network and the correspondent node (CN) was in a 24 Mbps WiMAX [52].
In [53], analytical modeling was presented in order to
evaluate the signalling cost of mobility management during
VHO between WiMAX and UMTS scenario. The results
shown that transmission signalling cost, the transmission
processing cost and the queuing signalling cost increased
linearly with the increasing value of IMS arrival rate.

123

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

In [54], the authors presented Wi-Fi and WiMAX scenario and three coupling architectures, such as tight coupling (TC), loose coupling (LC) and hybrid coupling (HC)
to investigate VHO latency, mobile scanning interval
activity and neighboring advertisement received. The OPNET simulator shown that HC obtained less latency than
LC and TC such that the latency at the 50th minute was
*0.022 s [54].
4.3 MIP under IMS Category
In the literature there are many approaches which have
been proposed about VHO based on MIP under IMS [55
58].
In [55], the authors presented a new cross-layer mobility
management approach to provide smaller VHO latency and
lower signaling overhead. Analytical modeling shown
latency between MU and HA, MU and CN was *5276
and 4787 ms, respectively, while signalling cost between
MU and HA, MU and CN was *2,0008,750 and
2,5007,500, respectively [55].
In [56], the authors presented new approach to investigate
various performances, such as VHO latency, packet loss,
jitter and signaling cost. Analytical modeling and OPNET
simulator were used considering VoIP traffic. The simulator
shown the average session setup and VHO latency between
UMTS to WiMAX scenario was 190 and 210 ms, respectively, while packet loss was *0.34 when number of VHO
was reached to 6, also it shown that the signaling cost
exponentially reduced with increasing call-to-mobility ratio
when the session arrival rate and service rate were constant,
while jitter was exponentially increasing [56].
In [57], the authors presented an approach in order to
provide seamless VHO between WiMAX and UMTS scenario with no packet loss and minimum latency taking into
account the RSS parameter to make VHO decision. The
OPNET simulator was used considering FTP and VoIP
traffics and results shown that the average latency using
FTP was *45.7 ms in UMTS and 28.8 ms in WiMAX,
while the latency was *31.6 ms in UMTS and 19.8 ms in
WiMAX using VoIP [57]. However, no performance evolution provided regarding packet loss.
In [58], the authors presented an approach in order to
provide seamless VHO with QoS support between WiMAX and UMTS scenario taking into account the RSS and
QoS for video conference to make VHO decision, while no
performance evolution provided regarding VHO.
4.4 MIH and IMS Combination Category
In the literature there are two approaches which have been
proposed about VHO based on combination between MIH
and IMS [59, 60].

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

Table 2 Comparative summary
of the two frameworks

223

The Specification

MIH

Producer

IEEE Group

3GPP

Released

2009

2002

Mobility management protocol

MIPv4, MIPv6, HIP, SIP, etc.

SIP

Legacy RATs

Support

Support

Security

Out of Scope

Support

Implementation of the decision algorithm

Out of scope

Out of scope

Wired & wireless multimedia service

Support

Support

Available RATs provider

MIIS

Cell broadcasting

Available RATs provider capability

Large

Limited

Upgrade

No need

Legacy cells (2G/3G)

Additional cost

No

Yes

Components

Five

Eleven

Battery consumptions (MU)

Low

High

Receivers (MU)

One

Two

In [59], the authors presented an approach between WiFi, WiMAX and UMTS scenarios in order to perform
intelligent and accurate VHO with better latency and
packet loss taking into account the RSS to make VHO
decision. The authors divided the latency into two periods:
handover latency between MU and advertisement router
(MU-AR) and handover latency between MU and HA
(MU-HA).The analytical modeling results taking into
account video streaming shown that latency was
*50100 ms at MU-AR and 50 ms at MU-HA time, while
packet loss was zero [59].
In [60], the author presented new approach to minimize
handover latency and improving perceived video quality in
terms of peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR). The PSNR or
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) parameters was considered to
make VHO decision. Analytical modeling and testbed
experiment between 3G and Wi-Fi indicated that VHO
latency was reduced by 12 s compared to non-integrated
MIH/IMS frameworks [60].

5 Comparison of the VHO Approaches

In Sect. 4 we have discussed eighteen VHO recent
approaches found in the literature [2, 25, 35, 4347, 5160]
and classified them into four categories based on MIH and
IMS frameworks in order to present their objectives and
performances issues. To offer a systematic and exhaustive
comparison in this survey, we present two types of comparison: comparison between the frameworks (MIH and
IMS) and a comparison between the four categories based
on these frameworks (MIH based category, IMS based
category, MIP under IMS based category and MIH and
IMS combination based category).

IMS

In order to provide comparison of the two frameworks,

we summarize their specifications on fourteen aspects:
producer, released, mobility management protocol, legacy
RATs, security, implementation of the decision algorithm,
wired and wireless multimedia service, available RATs
provider, available RATs provider capability, upgrade,
additional cost, components, battery consumptions (MU)
and receivers (MU), this is shown in Table 2.
As shown in Sect. 3.5, the IMS framework includes
large number of components, it is based on SIP for
mobility management, the MU obliges to discover neighbor cells with no assistance by periodically conducting a
radio scanning in the background which results in:
(a) Limited information is discovered, (b) the MU needs
two receivers work concurrently one for scanning and
another for ongoing session, while one receiver may be
incurred probability of missing data from serving cell,
(c) high MU power consumption, and (d) upgrades legacy
cells (2G/3G) due to broadcast information about 4G
neighbors cells, such as WiMAX and LTE which results in
additional cost.
As shown in Sect. 3.4, MIH presents less number of
components compared with IMS, it is based on various
mobility management protocols, such as MIPv4 and MIPv6
which are best standard for VHO and presents MIIS which
is responsible for collecting all information required to
identify if a handover is needed or not and provide them to
MUs (e.g. available networks, locations, capabilities,
cost.etc.) which results in: (a) large amount of information
is provided, (b) one receiver for ongoing session, (c) low
MU power consumption, and (d) no need to upgrade legacy
cells (no additional cost); hence, the majority of approaches in the literature are based on MIH framework. However, security check is out of its scope.

123

123

IMS

[2]

MIH

Registration
latency

[52]

Signaling cost
Latency

[53]

[54]

Session setup
latency

Latency

Latency

Packet loss

Latency

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

RSS

RSS

Network capacity

Throughput

RSS

Latency

RSS

RSS

Packet loss

[51]

[47]

[46]

[45]

Latency

[44]
Packet loss

Latency

[43]

Not mentioned

Yes
No

HC (Yes)
TC (Yes)
LC (No)

Wi-Fi

Yes

No

WiMAX

UMTS

No

No

LCWC (No)

WiMAX

Yes

TCWC (Yes)

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Additional
cost

WiMAX

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Additional
entity

3G

UMTS

Wi-Fi

WiMAX

Wi-Fi

3G(HSPA)

Wi-Fi

UMTS

WiMAX

Wi-Fi

WiMAX

Wi-Fi

WiMAX

Wi-Fi

LTE

WiMAX

UMTS

Packet loss

Jitter

Wi-Fi
WiMAX

RSS

Connection rate

Loss rate

Link quality

3G

WiMAX

Wi-Fi

Applicable
area

Packet loss

Latency

Network
performance
Link throughput

RSS

Latency

VHO decision
criteria

Throughput

Main objective

[35]

[25]

Approach found in
literature

Category

Table 3 A comparative summary of the 18 VHO approaches presented in this survey

Simulation (OPNET)

Analytical

Analytical & Simulation (Ns-2)

Simulation (OPNET)

Analytical

Testbed

Simulation (Ns-2)

Analytical

Simulation (Ns-2)

Not evaluation

Simulation (Ns-2)

Empirical

Evaluation method

Not mentioned

Not mentioned

VoIP, MPEG, FTP,

HTTP

VoIP

Not mentioned

Video

VoIP

CBR

Not mentioned

FTP

Not mentioned

IPTV

VoIP

Streaming

Traffic

Less
complexity

Simple

Complexity

224
Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Video

Yes
Yes

Analytical & testbed

Yes
Yes

Video streaming

Yes
Yes

Analytical

VoIP
Simulation (OPNET)

Video conference

VoIP
Analytical & Simulation
(OPNET)

Yes

3G

Wi-Fi
PSNR

UMTS

SNR
Latency
[60]

Wi-Fi

WiMAX

UMTS

RSS
Latency

Packet loss

[59]
MIH and IMS
combination

WiMAX
RSS

QoS

Signaling cost
[58]

WiMAX

UMTS

RSS
Packet loss

Signaling cost

Jitter

Packet loss

Latency
[57]

UMTS

WiMAX
Session setup
latency

Latency
[56]

Not mentioned
Signaling cost

Latency
[55]
MIP under IMS

Fig. 4 Comparison between the categories (RATs)

Fig. 5 Comparison between the categories (performance)

Not mentioned

Not
mentioned

Yes

Not evaluation

Complexity
Real time service
Analytical

FTP

Complexity
Traffic
Evaluation method
Additional
cost
Additional
entity
Applicable
area
VHO decision
criteria
Main objective
Approach found in
literature
Category

Table 3 continued

225

High
complexity

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

Whereas the commen area between them includes support wired and wireless multimedia service and legacy
RATs, while implementation of the decision algorithm is
out of their scope.
In order to provide comparison of the four categories,
we summarize their features on eight aspects: objective,
VHO decision criteria, applicable area, additional entity,
cost, complexity, evaluation method and traffic, this is
shown in Table 3. We observe that MIH is the only category which presents solutions include all existing networks: 3G (e.g. UMTS, HSPA) and 4G (e.g. WiMAX,
LTE), also the approaches [2,25 and 45] present comprehensive solutions to ensure the VHO between three types
of different RATs: Wi-Fi, WiMAX and 3G, followed by
MIH and IMS combination category which deals with three
types of different RATs in approach [59], whereas the rest
of categories are content with two types of RATs, this is
shown in Fig. 4.
As for the main objective, the MIH categorys performance focuses on two vital parameters that make VHO
seamless: latency and packet loss, followed by MIP under
IMS category which also focuses on signaling cost, followed by MIH and IMS combination category and finally,
the majority approaches of IMS category focus on latency,
while packet loss is out of its scope, this is shown in Fig. 5.

123

226

Fig. 6 Comparison between the categories (evaluation methods)

For VHO decision criteria, the MIH category presents

approaches to make VHO decision based on the various
network parameters as in [2, 45], followed by MIH and
IMS combination category and MIP under IMS category
due to (PSNR, SNR, RSS), (QoS, RSS), respectively,
whereas in IMS category the VHO decision criteria is not
mentioned.
In terms of complexity, the MIH and IMS combination
category is high complex due to the combination between
the frameworks (MIH and IMS) which results in additional
entities and cost, followed by MIP under IMS category due
to the MIP components (HA and FA), followed by IMS
with less complexity due to the large number of its components that require for VHO session, lastly, MIH category
is simple compared to above categories due to less number
of components which are able to play vital role for providing seamless VHO by selecting target RAT.
Finally, the evolution methods in the survey are various
between real environment, testbed, simulation tools and
analytical modeling. We observe that the MIH category is
mostly in the practical and it is sole providing one empirical work real environment [2], followed by IMS Category,
MIP under IMS and MIH and IMS combination category,
this is shown in Fig. 6.

6 Conclusion
In this paper, we have overviewed two main interworking
frameworks that have been proposed by IEEE Group and
3GPP for integration between the different types of technologies (3GPP and non-3GPP); namely, MIH and IMS,
where each of them requires mobility management protocol to complement its work, such as MIP and SIP,
respectively. Also, we have surveyed the VHO approaches
proposed in the literature and classified them into four
categories based on the above frameworks for which we
have presented their objectives and performances issues.
To offer a systematic and exhaustive comparison in this

123

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

survey, we have presented two types of comparison:

comparison between the frameworks (MIH and IMS) and
comparison between the four categories (MIH based category, IMS based category, MIP under IMS based category
and MIH and IMS combination based category).
The comparison between the frameworks has shown that
MIH framework plays critical role in providing seamless
VHO with less number of vital components which result in:
(a) large amount of information is provided, (b) one
receiver for ongoing session, (c) low MU power consumption), and (d) no need to upgrade legacy cells (no
additional cost). However, the security for re-authentication at the target network and implementation of the
decision algorithm are still required improving by
designers.
The comparison between the four categories has shown
that MIH is the only category which presents solutions
include all existing networks 3G (e.g., UMTS, HSPA) and
4G (e.g. WiMAX, LTE), it presents comprehensive solutions to ensure VHO between three types of different RATs:
Wi-Fi, WiMAX and 3G, it deals with multiple parameters
to make VHO decision, it has been practically tested, it is
simple compared to other categories and finally, there is one
approach uses empirical work in real environment.

References
1. Our vision: Committed to connecting the world. (04/08/2011).
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). http://www.itu.
int/en/about/Pages/vision.aspx. Accessed June 5, 2013.
2. B. Angoma, M. Erradi, Y. Benkaouz, A. Berqia, and M.
C. Akalay, HaVe-2W3G: A vertical handoff solution between
WLAN, WiMAX and 3G networks, 7th International Wireless
Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC),
pp. 101106, 48 Jul 2011.
3. A. Haji, A. Ben Letaifa, and S. Tabbane, Integration of WLAN,
UMTS and WiMAX in 4G, 16th IEEE International Conference
Electronics, Circuits, and Systems (ICECS) pp. 307310, 1316
Dec 2009.
4. N. Akkari, and S. Tohme, Introducing Intelligent Vertical
Handover in Next Generation Networks, IEEE International
Conference Signal Processing and Communications (ICSPC),
pp. 728731, 2427 Nov 2007.
5. Y. Nkansah-Gyekye, and J. I. Agbinya, A Vertical Handoff
Decision Algorithm for Next Generation Wireless Networks,
Third International Conference on Broadband Communications,
Information
Technology
&
Biomedical
Applications,
pp. 358364, 2326 Nov 2008.
6. S. Benoubira, M. Frikha, and S. Tabbane, Hierarchical mobile
IPv6 based architecture for heterogeneous wireless networks
interworking, IEEE 3rd International Conference on Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN), pp. 422426, 2729 May
2011.
7. S. Fernandes, and A. Karmouch, Vertical mobility management
architectures in wireless networks: a comprehensive survey and
future directions, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4563, First Quarter 2012.

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

8. M. Zekri, B. Jouaber, and D. Zeghlache, Context aware vertical
handover decision making in heterogeneous wireless networks,
IEEE 35th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN),
pp. 764768, 1014 Oct 2010.
9. M. Kassar, B. Kervella, and G. Pujolle, An overview of vertical
handover decision strategies in heterogeneous wireless networks,
Computer Communications, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 26072620, 25
Jun 2008.
10. E. Stevens-Navarro, and V. W. S Wong, Comparison between
vertical handoff decision algorithms for heterogeneous wireless
networks, IEEE 63rd Vehicular Technology Conference
(VTC),vol. 2, pp. 947951, 710 May 2006.
11. P. M. L. Chan, R, E, Sheriff, Y. F. Hu, P. Conforto, and C. Tocci,
Mobility management incorporating fuzzy logic for heterogeneous a IP environment, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol.
39, no. 12, pp. 4251, Dec 2001.
12. W. T. Chen, J. C. Liu, and H. K. Huang, An adaptive scheme for
vertical handoff in wireless overlay networks, Tenth International
Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS),
pp. 541548, 79 Jul 2004.
13. J. McNair, and F. Zhu, Vertical handoffs in fourth-generation
multinetwork environments, IEEE Wireless Communications,
vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 815, Jun 2004.
14. Y. Gyekye-Nkansah, and J. Agbinya, Vertical handoffs decision
algorithms using fuzzy logic, International Conference on
Wireless Broadband and Ultra Wideband Communications,
pp. 15, 2006.
15. D. Sourav, R. Amitava, and B. Rabindranath, Design and simulation of vertical handover algorithim for vehicular communication, International Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 55095525, 2010.
16. ETSI, Requirements and Architectures for Interworking between
HIPERLAN/3 and 3rd Generation Cellular Systems, Technical
Report ETSI TR 101 957, Aug 2001.
17. A. K. Salkintzis, C. Fors, and R. Pazhyannur, WLAN-GPRS
integration for next-generation mobile data networks, IEEE
Wireless Communication, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 112124, Oct 2002.
18. B. Ronald.(2009). Integration of heterogeneous wireless access
networks. H. Ekram (ed), Heterogeneous Wireless Access Networks
Architectures and Protocols (118), Springer, New York, 2009.
19. J. Rodriguez, M. Tsagaropoulos, I. Politis, S. Kotsopoulos, and T.
Dagiuklas, A middleware architecture supporting seamless and
secure multimedia services across an intertechnology radio access
network, IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 5,
pp. 2431, Oct 2009.
20. M. B. Johann, T. C. Carlos, C. Juan-Carlos, and M. Pietro,
Review: an overview of vertical handover techniques: algorithms,
protocols and tools, Computer Communication, vol. 34, no. 8,
pp. 985997, 1 Jun 2011.
21. O. Khattab, and O. Alani, I AM 4 VHO: new apprach to improve
seamless vertical handover in heterogeneous wireless networks,
International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications
(IJCNC), vol. 5, no. 3, May 2013.
22. 3GPP. (16/05/2013), IEEE 802.21. http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/
Specs/html-info/24312.htm. Accessed 18, 2013.
23. P. Taaghol, A. Salkintzis, and J. Iyer, Seamless integration of
mobile WiMAX in 3GPP networks, IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 7485, Oct 2008.
24. W. Song, C. Jong-Moon, L. Daeyoung, L. Chaegwon, C. Sungho,
and Y. Taesun, Improvements to seamless vertical handover
between mobile WiMAX and 3GPP UTRAN through the evolved
packet core, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 47, no. 4,
pp. 6673, Apr 2009.
25. P. Neves, J. Soares, and S. Sargento, Media Independent Handovers: LAN, MAN and WAN scenarios, IEEE GLOBECOM
Workshops, pp. 16, 30 Nov4 Dec 2009.

227
26. G. Lampropoulos, A. K. Salkintzis, and N. Passas, Media Independent Handover for seamless service provision in heterogeneous networks, IEEE Communication Magazine, vol. 46, no. 1,
pp. 6471, Jan 2008.
27. IEEE P802.21/D10.0, Draft standard for local and metropolitan
area networks: Media Independent Handover services, Apr 2008.
28. A. Pontes, D. Dos Passos Silva, J. Jailton, O. Rodrigues, and K.
L. Dias, Handover management in integrated WLAN and mobile
WiMAX networks, IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no.
5, pp. 8695, Oct 2008.
29. D. Corujo, C. Guimaraes, B. Santos, and R. L. Aguiar, Using an
open-source IEEE 802.21 implementation for network-based
localized mobility management, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 114123, Sep 2011.
30. IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks
Media Independent Handover Services, IEEE 802.21, Jan 2009.
31. M. Kassab, J. M. Bonnin, and A. Belghith A, Technology integration Framework for fast and low cost handovers-case study:
WiFiWiMAX network, Journal of computer systems, networks,
and communications, Hindawi publishing corporation, vol. 2010,
no. 9, pp. 121, Jan 2010.
32. P. Vetrivelan, and P. Narayanasamy, SMIRT with Call Admission Control (CAC) based vertical handover decision for seamless mobility in multi-access 4G heterogeneous wireless overlay
networks, Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science,
vol. 2195, no. 1, pp. 408413, Mar 2012.
33. T. Miriam, D. Ahutosh, C. Yuu-Heng, D. Subir, B. Donald, Y.
Maya, F. David, O. Yoshihiro, F. Victor, and T. Kenichi, Realization of IEEE 802.21 Services and Preauthentication Framework, 5th International Conference on Testbeds and Research
Infrastructures for the Development of Networks & Communities
and Workshops, pp. 110, Apr 68 2009.
34. IEEE 802.21 Tutorial (2006). IEEE 802.21. Retrieved 5 Jan,2013,
from http://www.ieee802.org/21/. Accessed Jan 5, 2013.
35. S. Frei, W. Fuhrmann, A. Rinkel, and B. V. Ghita, Improvements
to Inter System Handover in the EPC Environment, 4th IFIP
International Conferenceon on New Technologies, Mobility and
Security (NTMS), pp. 15,710 Feb 2011.
36. Y. Xiaohuan, Y. Ahmet S ekercioglu, and N. Sathya, A survey of
vertical handover decision algorithms in Fourth Generation heterogeneous wireless networks, Computer Networks, vol. 54, no.
11, pp. 18481863, 2 Aug 2010.
37. S. S. Sengar, N. Tyagi, and A. P. Singh, A survey on WiMAX-3G
interworking, IEEE 3rd International Conference on Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN), pp. 5458, 2729 May 2011.
38. M. Lin, and R. Lanlan, An end-to-end QoS frame in multimedia
provision for tight-coupled Interworking of IMS and WiMAX,
IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and
Control (ICNSC), pp. 11531157, 68 Apr 2008.
39. X. Fangmin, Z. Luyong, and Z. Zheng, Interworking of WiMAX
and 3GPP networks based on IMS [IP Multimedia Systems (IMS)
Infrastructure and Services], IEEE Communications Magazine,
vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 144150, Mar 2007.
40. B. Bakmaz, Z. Bojkovic, and M. Bakmaz, Internet protocol
multimedia subsystem for mobile services, 14th International
Workshop on Systems, Signals and Image Processing and 6th
EURASIP Conference focused on Speech and Image Processing,
Multimedia Communications and Services, pp. 339342, 2730
June 2007.
41. L. Youngsuk, K. Namhi, K. Seokkap, and K. Younghan, An
efficient QoS control mechanism for IMS based convergence
network, 2nd IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on Broadband
Convergence Networks (BcN 07), pp. 112, 2121 May 2007.
42. M. A. Qadeer, A. H. Khan, J. A. Ansari, and S. Waheed, IMS
network architecture, International Conference on Future Computer and Communication (ICFCC), pp. 329333, 35 Apr 2009.

123

228
43. J. M Kim, and J. W. Jang, Low latency vertical handover using
MIH L2-trigger algorithm in Mobile IP Networks. I. Stojmenovic, R. Thulasiram, L. Yang, W. Jia, M. Guo, and R. De Mello
(eds.), Parallel and Distributed Processing and Applications
(707718) Springer, Berlin, 2007.
44. H. H. Kim, S. C. Park, and M. KYU YI, Fast-handover mechanism
between 802.11 WLAN and 802.16 WiMax with MIH in PMIPv6,
4th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Technologies & Applications (ICUT 09), pp. 16, 2022 Dec 2009.
45. J. Marquez-Barja, C. T. Calafate, J.-C. Cano, and P. Manzoni,Evaluation of a technology-aware vertical handover algorithm
based on the IEEE 802.21 standard, IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), pp. 617622,
2831 Mar 2011.
46. N. Capela, J. Soares, P. Neves, and S. Sargento, An architecture
for optimized inter-technology handovers: experimental study,
IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC),
pp. 16, 59 Jun 2011.
47. S. Heecheol, K. Jongjin, L. Jaeki, and S. L. Hwang, Analysis of
vertical handover latency for IEEE 802.21-enabled Proxy Mobile
IPv6, 13th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), pp. 10591063, 1316 Feb 2011.
48. O. Khattab, and O. Alani, Survey on Media Independent Handover (MIH) Approaches in Heterogeneous Wireless Networks,
19th European Wireless 2013 (EW 2013), 1618 Apr 2013.
49. S. Gundavelli et al., Proxy Mobile IPv6, IETF RFC 5213, Aug
2008.
50. Part 21: Media Independent Handover Services, IEEE Std
802.21-2008, Jan 2009.
51. K. Munasinghe, and A. Jamalipour, Interworking of WLAN-UMTS
networks: an IMS-based platform for session mobility, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 184191, Sep 2008.
52. A. Munir, and A. Gordon-Ross, SIP-based IMS signaling analysis
for WiMax-3G interworking architectures, IEEE Mobile Computing, Transactions, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 733750, May 2010.
53. A. Sgora, and D. D. Vergados, IMS mobility management in
integrated WiMAX-3G architectures, 14th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI), pp. 170174, 1012 Sep 2010.
54. L. Nithyanandan, and I. Parthiban, Seamless vertical handoff in
heterogeneous networks using IMS technology, International
Conference on Communications and Signal Processing (ICCSP),
45 Apr 2012, pp. 3235.
55. L. Lifeng, and L. Gang, Cross-layer mobility management based
on Mobile IP and SIP in IMS, WiCom International Conference
on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 2125 Sep. 2007, pp. 803806.
56. K. S. Munasinghe, and A. Jamalipour, Interworked WiMAX-3G
cellular data networks: an architecture for mobility management
and performance evaluation, IEEE Wireless Communications
Transactions, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 18471853, Apr 2009.
57. M. M. A. Khan, M. F. Ismail, and K. Dimyati, Seamless handover
between WiMAX and UMTS, Malaysia International Conference on Communications (MICC) pp. 826830, 1517 Dec 2009.

123

Int J Wireless Inf Networks (2013) 20:215228

58. N. M. Alamri, and N. Adra, Integrated MIP-SIP for IMS-based
WiMAX-UMTS vertical handover, 19th International Conference on Telecommunications (ICT), pp. 16, 2325 Apr 2012.
59. M. Boutabia, E. Abd-Elrahman, and H. Afifi, A hybrid mobility
mechanism for heterogeneous networks in IMS, IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pp. 1570
1575, 1923 Jul 2010.
60. M. Tsagkaropoulos, I. Politis, C. Tselios, T. Dagiuklas, and S.
Kotsopoulos, Service continuity over intertechnology RATs,
IEEE 16th International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling
and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD),
pp. 117121, 1011 Jun 2011.

Author Biographies
Omar Khattab is a Ph.D. student at the School of Computing,
Science and Engineering at Salford University, UK. He received
M.Sc. in Computer Information
System, B.Sc. in Computer Science and Diploma in Programming Language 2005, 2003 and
2000, respectively. He has seven
years of teaching experience in
Networks, Computer Science
and Information Technology. He
has obtained a lot of international
professional certificates in the
field computer networks. He is
Microsoft Certified Trainer. His current research area is Computer
Networking and Data Telecommunication.
Omar Alani received his Ph.D.
degree in Telecommunication
Engineering from De Montfort
University, UK in 2005. He is
currently a lecturer of telecommunications at the School of
Computing, Science & Engineering, University of Salford in the
UK. His research interests include
Radio resource management and
location/mobility management in
next generation mobile communication systems, diversity and
adaptive modulation techniques
as well as Ad hoc networks.