References in periodicals archive ?
The specific aspect of VHO is that VHO introduces much longer interruptions when compared to more common HHO. The HHO usually lasts tens of milliseconds whilst VHO can take hundredths of milliseconds and more, depending on involved technologies.
So far, all existing studies focus either on HHO scenarios with/without the FAPs or on VHO scenarios without the FAPs (as described in more detail in the next section).
All above mentioned papers solely consider either the VHO decision aspects without FAPs (-), HHO decision with FAPs (-) or VHO procedure with FAPs but criteria for VHO decision are out of scope (, ).
The terminology used in this paper is as follows: i) serving station is a station to which the UE is currently attached, ii) target station is a station that can potentially become the UE's serving station after the handover execution, iii) hand-in is a handover from a MBS to a FAP (it is always VHO in our paper), iv) hand-out is a handover form a FAP to a MBS (it is always VHO in our paper), and v) inter-FAP is a handover between two adjacent FAPs (it is always HHO in our paper).
The CS-I follows the same principle as the conventional HHO strategy , as simple comparison of RSS from the serving and target stations is done.
The advantage of the PS is that the amount of VHOs could be significantly mitigated as only two VHOs and one HHO is performed.
The hand-in in the case of CS-I is influenced by the distance of the UE from the MBS ([d.sub.UE-MBS]), by the distance of the UE from the FAP ([d.sub.UE-FAP]) and by the value of HHO. If the MBS has temporarily free resources that are barely sufficient to serve the UE (i.e., if [TH.sub.MBS](t) is only slightly higher than [UE.sub.req](t)), no handover is performed thanks to [kappa].
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- HHO Gas