Int. J. Communications, Network and System Sciences, 2009, 2, 895-902
doi:10.4236/ijcns.2009.29104 Published Online December 2009 (
Copyright © 2009 SciRes. IJCNS
Balanced Topology NEMO Construction for the
Internet-Based MANET
Long-Sheng LI1, Gwo-Chuan LEE2, and Li-Keng KANG1
1Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan, China
2Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National United University, Miaoli, Taiwan, China
E-mail: {sheng, s0950292},
Received September 1, 2009; revised October 13, 2009; accepted November 21, 2009
A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a wireless network without any fixed infrastructure. All nodes must
communicate with each other by a predefined routing protocol. Most of routing protocols dont consider
binding internet addresses to mobile nodes. However, in network mobility (NEMO), all mobile nodes cant
only communicate with Internet using Bi-directional tunneling but also can be allocated an Internet address.
In this paper, we propose two algorithms with the nested NEMO topology to reconstruct the Internet-based
MANET. Additionally, a novel load balancing solution is proposed. The Mobile Router (MR) which acts as
a central point of internet attachment for the nodes, and it is likely to be a potential bottleneck because of its
limited wireless link capacity. We proposed a load-information in the route advertisement (RA) message.
The simulation results show that the proposed solution has significantly improved the connection throughput.
Keywords: MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc Network), NEMO (Network Mobility), RA (Route Advertisement),
MR (Mobile Router)
1. Introduction
In recent years, as a result of wireless network develop-
ment, the number of mobile devices increases, e.g.
Notebook, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) and Cellular
Phone etc, the request for ubiquitous Internet access is
violently blooming. The user can access the Internet by
the mobile devices when they are moving. The present
wireless network technology can be divided into two
kinds: 1) with the foundation network construction 2)
without the foundation network construction. In former,
mobile nodes can communicate with each other and ac-
cess the Internet by connecting to access point (AP) or
base station (BS). Compared with on former, the latter is
characterized by the lack of any fixed network infra-
structure. Mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is one kind
of the letter. MANET is composes by a crowd of mobile
nodes. Without the support of fixed network infrastruc-
ture, every node will play the role of router. In other
words, every node in MANET has ability to forward the
packets. Any two nodes in communication can transmit
the packets in direct or through other nodes in indirect.
The nodes in MANET can not access the Internet di-
rectly. If the node in MANET wants to communicate
with the node in the Internet, the packets sent to the AP
or BS, and then into the Internet. As we know, the rout-
ing issue in MANET is focus on the packets transmit in
the MANET. Many researches discuss the performance
about the routing protocol algorithms. But they do not
discuss the routing problems between the MANET and
When more and more electronic devices become be
capable of wireless communications, the original static-
routing Internet protocol (IP) address is not enough to
support the mobility of the devices. The Mobile IP
Working Group within the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) has proposed the Mobile IP protocol to
support the mobility of the devices in IP-based networks
[1]. A network which is viewed as a single unit and
moved around we call a Mobile Network (MONET). The
concept that implements Mobile Network is called Net-
work Mobility (NEMO) [2]. The IETF NEMO working
group has been setup in an effort to address issues related
to NEMO [3]. The working group has standardized the
NEMO Basic Support protocol recently [4]. The NEMO
protocol is a way of managing the mobility of an entire
network which changes its point to the global Internet [5].
The NEMO protocol is based on mobile IPv6 [6]. Figure
Copyright © 2009 SciRes. IJCNS
shows the basic operation of the NEMO Basic Support
protocol. The MONET is composed of one or more mo-
bile routers (MRs) with the communication devices
called mobile nodes (MNNs). All MNNs can connect to
Internet via an MR. The access router (AR) connects to
an MR via a wireless link. MR and its home agent (HA)
keep communicating by a bi-directional tunneling. When
the MNN moves around, the MR sends a router adver-
tisement (RA) to the MNN periodically. After receiving
the RA, MNN gets the care-of-address (CoA) and sends
the binding update (BU) message includes the CoA to
the HA. CoA is a new and temporary address that is ob-
tained on each visited MONET. After this process, the
HA can forward the packets destined for the home ad-
dress (HoA) of the MR to this CoA. MR has two inter-
faces, the Egress Interface and Ingress Interface. The MR
transmits the packets to MNN via Ingress Interface. On
the contrary, MR uses the Egress Interface to forward the
packets from MONET.
It is an important issue for the mobile router to guar-
antee that stable communications and a high data rate.
According to the NEMO support protocol, users can
dispose their own mobile devices into a mobile network
but only the MR needs to consider that the task of mobil-
ity management. As we know, the MR is attached to the
AR through a wireless interface, and all packets in/out
the mobile network must pass through it. So the MR is
the single point of failure. However, the NEMO protocol
is a hierarchical construction, the ARs and MRs could be
the overloaded points with the most traffic load. Ac-
cording to the characteristic of wireless channels, i.e.
limited bandwidth and high jitter, we hope that the traffic
load of whole system could be balanced between ARs
and MRs. To achieve this goal, we propose a dynamic
load balancing scheme. We add some information in BU
and RA. According to this information, MRs/MNNs can
connect to the AR/MR with the less traffic load.
Figure 1. A NEMO architecture.
The rest of the paper is organized ad follows. Section
2 introduces two cluster algorithms in MANET and the
load balance index which we use to evaluate our scheme.
Section 3 describes two ways to reconstruct MANET to
NEMO and a dynamic load balancing scheme. Section 4
shows our simulation results and analyzes performance
evaluation. Finally, Section 5, we conclude our results
and present some future research issues.
2. Related Work
There are several heuristics algorithms have been pro-
posed to solve ad hoc networks clustering problem. We
use Lowest-ID (LID) algorithm [7] and Highest-Degree
algorithm (HD) [8] to achieve our goal. In LID, each
node has a unique ID. Every node periodically broad-
casts its ID through a Hello message. By receiving the
message, nodes know the neighbor ID. The lowest-ID
node in the same neighborhood is selected as a cluster
head (CH); nodes which can listen two or more CHs
become cluster gateway (CG), while other nodes are
cluster member (CM). In HD, the highest degree node in
a neighborhood is selected as a CH. The degree value
means that the number of neighbors. In contrast with
LID, HD uses location information for the cluster com-
position. Like LID, node periodically broadcasts its de-
gree through a Hello message.
Another important issue that we consider is load bal-
ancing. We use the index β firstly introduced in [9] and
used in [10]. Let Bi be the throughput at AR i , then the
βis defined as
( )
where n is the number of neighboring ARs. The index is
1 when all ARs have the same throughput. In this paper,
our target is to get maximum index.
3. Proposed Schemes
In this section, we proposed two schemes to reconstruct
the nested NEMO from MANET. We adopt two cluster
algorithms which are used in MANET, but we do not
discuss their drawbacks. We use the two cluster algo-
rithms in the initial construction. When the network to-
pology changes, we adopt the NEMO basic support pro-
tocol. However, the NEMO support protocol is a hierar-
chical architecture; we modify the way of cluster. Figure
2 shows that AR is the CH of Cluster a and Node u is the
CH of Cluster b and Node v is the CH of Cluster c. Then,
Node u and Node v are both CMs for AR. So the AR is
the root node of the tree topology. We construct the net-
work topology in a tree base to avoid the loop route. In
our cluster algorithm, the Node u and Node v will be the
roles of MR. First, we define the Level value. In Figure 3,
Copyright © 2009 SciRes. IJCNS
Figure 2. The clustering scheme.
the Level value of the MNN is defined as the shortest
hop counts to AR. Level 1 means that the shortest hop
counts between node and AR is 1.
3.1. Distributed Scheme (DS)
First, we assume that all nodes have at least two network
interfaces. Because every node has the opportunity to be
elected as an MR. Therefore, in DS, every node uses the
LID algorithm to choose its CH. For example, in Figure
4, node 111 is the node of Level 2. It can hear from
node 225 and node 32. Because node 32 is the lowest id
for node 111, node 32 is node 111s CH, node 111 is
node 32s CM. However, node 200 is the node of Level 4.
We will choose the node of Level 3 to be the CH. So,
node 1 is node 200s CH, node 200 is node 1s CM.
Then, after cluster completes, each node has its own
cluster. So every node will be the CH or CM. Now, the
network architecture is reconstructed to a tree topology.
So the CHs play the role of MRs and the CMs play the
role of MNNs. We successfully reconstruct the MANET
to NEMO.
3.2. Centralized Scheme (CS)
In DS, each node is unable to know the entire network
topology condition; it could unable to select suitable
nodes. The construction is independently completes by
each Node. In CS, we use the top-down approach. First,
in Figure 6, we choose that AR is the Root CH and ARs
neighbors are CMs. So node 225, node 32, node 80, node
44 and node 144 are ARs neighbors. Then, AR use HD
algorithm to choose the CH of the Level 1. In Figure 7,
the node 32 and node 44 are both the CMs of AR and
CHs of the Level 2. Additionally, we find the node 25 in
the overlapping place between node 32 and node 44. We
can not guarantee node 25 is assigned to the most
Figure 3. Level of all nodes.
Copyright © 2009 SciRes. IJCNS
Figure 4. The distributed scheme.
Figure 5. The distributed scheme (complete).
Copyright © 2009 SciRes. IJCNS
Figure 6. Centralized scheme (step 1).
Figure 7. Centralized scheme (step 2).
Copyright © 2009 SciRes. IJCNS
Figure 8. Centralized scheme (complete).
suitable cluster. This will cause the load balance issue.
We will discuss the Sub-Section 3.3. From top to down,
every node is selected as a CM or CH. However, CMs
play the roles of MNNs and CHs play the roles of MRs.
3.3. Load balancing Scheme (LBS)
In Sub-Section 3.1 and Sub-Section 3.2, when the con-
nection of the AR and the Internet fails, the communica-
tion of a number of nodes in MONET is disconnected.
For large MONET, which includes many MRs and
MNNs, it will become a critical issue. In this section, we
propose a scheme to achieve dynamic load balancing. In
Figure 9, the load in/out in AR1 is 100kb/s, the load
in/out in AR2 is 500kb/s. In the point of view for load
balancing, the cluster-overlay node should be connecting
to AR1. There are smaller packet load and nodes behind
AR1 than AR2. But in NEMO basic support protocol, the
cluster-overlay node receives the RA1 and the RA2 si-
multaneously. It will send BU to its HA through AR1 or
AR2. If the cluster-overlay node sends BU via AR2, the
cluster-overlay node will communicate to CN with
100Kb/s, the total load in/out in AR2 is 600Kb/s. The
load between AR1 and AR2 will be exceedingly unbal-
anced. In Figure 10 is the RA message format defines in
Mobile IPv6. There is no useful information to solve this
problem. So we modify the RA message format to
achieve our goal.
Figure 9. The node between two Ars.
Type Code Checksum
Cur Hop
Limit M
Reserved Router Lifetime
Reachable Time
Retrans Timer
Figure 10 . RA message format.
Copyright © 2009 SciRes. IJCNS
Type Code Checksum
Cur Hop
Limit M
Router Lifetime
Reachable Time
Retrans Timer
Options Type Length
Type=11 Length Current Load Information
Figure 11. RA message format that we proposed.
In Figure 11, we add some information in Reserved
and Option. The Node_Num is the number of nodes
behind the AR/MR. The Current Load Information is the
current packets load through the AR/MR. For Example,
in Figure 9, the AR1 sends RA1 with Node_Num = 1
and Current Load Information = 100, the AR2 sends
the RA2 with Node_Num = 3 and Current Load In-
formation = 500. So the cluster-overlay node receives
the RA1 and RA2 simultaneously, it will send the BU to
its HA through AR1. Because the packets load of AR1
is smaller than AR2.
3.3.1. Traffic Load Balancing
Two load balancing schemes are proposed. One is the
traffic load balancing, another is node number balancing.
Of course, the traffic load is the most important criterion
in our scheme. In Figure, MR1 will send BU to MR1s
HA through AR1. We hope that the traffic load of AR1
and the traffic load of AR2 are equal. But it is impossible.
So our goal is to reduce the load difference between two
ARs. So that is why MR5 choose the AR with smaller
3.3.2. Node Number Balancing
According to the load information, the node can choose
the most appropriate AR/MR to connect. In Figure 13,
the traffic load of AR1 is 110Kb/s and the traffic load of
AR1 is 105Kb/s. The difference between two ARs is too
small. Now, another criterion in our scheme is the num-
ber of node. AR2 has three nodes and AR1 has only node.
According to 3.3.1, the MR1 should connect to AR2. So
AR2 will have six nodes and AR1 has only one node. If
the MNN2, MNN3 and MNN4 will not increase their
traffic load, it is not a matter. But the MNN2 increases
50Kb/s, MNN3 increases 50Kb/s and MNN4 increases
50Kb/s. The total traffic load of AR2 is 255Kb/s. In this
situation, we hope that the MR1 connects to the AR with
fewer nodes behinds it. So we propose the Node Number
Balancing approach to solve this problem. If the differ-
ence of two AR is less than 10% of total load, the node
will connect to the AR/MR with fewer nodes behind it.
4. Simulation Results
To evaluate the performance of the proposed schemes,
we design a simulation program to calculate the per-
formance. The simulation program is designed by Visual
C++ in Windows XP. Table is the simulation parame-
ters in our network topology.
In Figure 14, the x-axis is the number of nodes; the
y-axis is the value of LBI. According to the formula of
LBI, the most ideal situation is the value of the LBI is 1.
In our simulation, we assume that the total packet num-
bers are proportionally increase by the node number. So
the numbers of nodes increase the traffic load increase.
But the LBI does not change. The reason is that the total
packets proportionally increase, according to the formula
of LBI, the LBI will not change. Additionally, the LBI of
Figure 12. Traffic Load Balancing.
Figure 13. Node balancing.
Table 1. Simulation parameters.
Room Size 500 (m) * 500 (m)
The number of the Access Router 2
The position of the Access Router (125,125), (375,375)
The number of nodes 50~200
The transmission range of nodes 180 (m)
The average speed of nodes 10 (m/sec)
The direction of nodes 360, Random
The pause time of nodes 10 (sec)
The interval of Router Advertisement 3 (sec)
The interval of Hello Message 3 (sec)
The transmission time of the data
packet Exponential distributions,
300ms in average
The simulation time 900 (sec)
Copyright © 2009 SciRes. IJCNS
5075 100 125 150 175 200
The Number of Node
Figure 14. The LBI in different number of nodes (Speed =
10 m/s).
10 20 3040 50
The Average Speed (m/s)
Figure 15. The LBI in different speed (Node =100).
CS (Centralized Scheme) and DS (Distributed Scheme)
get improvement when the number of nodes increases. In
fact, the unbalancing situation does not get improvement.
The reason is that the throughput of one AR is getting
down by the packet loss which causes by the limited
bandwidth. The packet loss of one AR will cause the
difference of throughput of two AR becoming small.
That will cause the LBI to get improvement.
In Figure 15, the x-axis is the average speed; the
y-axis is the value of LBI. In the original schemes, the
nodes can connect to the router with less traffic load. It
will cause the unbalancing situation. As the nodes mov-
ing faster, the situation does not change more. The rea-
son is the unbalancing situation will alleviate by the
moving speed of nodes. In TLP-LBS, we can get the
better value of the LBI. The reason is that the nodes
connect to the router with less traffic load. In NLP-LBS,
the nodes connect to the router with fewer nodes. The
router maybe has more traffic load. In this situation, that
will cause the router to get more traffic load afterwards.
5. Conclusions and Future Work
In this paper, we propose the two algorithms of recon-
struction from MANET to NEMO and the dynamic load
balancing scheme. We adopt two cluster algorithms
which used in MANET. In the NEMO basic support
protocol, the node receives the RA message without any
useful information and then sends the BU to its HA. The
node can not choose the most suitable point to connect.
In LBA, we put some useful load information into the
RA message. According this information, the node in
overlapping place between two routers, it will connect to
the less loaded router. We hope that the packets load
between routers is balanced. The simulation results show
that our approach can achieve large performance im-
The evaluation performed in this paper is just prelimi-
nary. NEMO provides ubiquitous communications with
network access. Therefore, all groups of communication
nodes can move as a single unit. We must evaluate the
proposed scheme with more realistic condition. e.g., the
nodes with the different movement speed. In the future
work, we will evaluate the end-to-end delay and packet
delivery ratio.
6. References
[1] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, Mobility support in
IPv6, Network Working Group, RFC3775, June 2004.
[2] T. Ernst and H. Y. Lach, Network mobility support ter-
minology, Internet Draft drafr-ietf-nemo-terminology-
03.txt, February 2005.
[3] The IETF NEMO working group, As of April 2005.
[4] V. Devarapalli, et al., Network mobility (NEMO) basic
support protocol, Request for Comments: 3963, IETF,
January 2005.
[5] T. Ernst and H. Lach, Network mobility support termi-
nology, Internet draft, February 2005. [Online]. Avail-
[6] D. Johnson, et. al., Mobility support in IPv6, Inter-
net-Draft, draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, Internet Engi-
neering Task Force (IETF), Work in Progress, June 2003.
[7] C. R. Li and G. Mario, Adaptive clustering for mobile
wireless networks, IEEE Journal of Selected Areas in
Communications, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 12651275, Sep-
tember 1997.
[8] M. Gerla and J. T. C. Tsai, Multicluster, mobile, multi-
media radio network, Wireless Networks, Vol. 1, No. 3,
pp. 255265, 1995.