troduces a minimum delay of 1.4048 S for C 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC SIP-Based Mobility Management and Its Performance Evaluation 128 Kbps channel, while a handoff to a WLAN access network from another WLAN or a UMTS network, the minimum delay is 0.2 ms. Abrupt and large end-to-end delay causes unacceptable packet loss for multimedia applications. Clearly, in the former case, the minimum delay is unacceptable for stream- ing multimedia traffic and requires the deployment of auxiliary techniques to reduce the packet loss to a minimum. Considering SIP mobility, a number of proposals now are in place to reduce the SIP hand-off delay. This frame- work and the underlying modeling techniques and assumptions can be easily extended to these SIP upgrade scenarios to evaluate their performance. References [1] Rosenberg, J., H. Schulzrinne, G. Camarillo, A. Johnston, J. Peterson, R. Sparks, M. Handley, and E. Schooler. 2002. SIP: Session Initiation Protocol, draft-ietf-mobileip-optim-11.txt IETF RFC 3261, June. [2] Schulzrinne, H., S. Casner, R. Frederick, and V. Jacobson. 2003. RTP: A transport protocol for real-time applications, IETF RFC 3550, July. [3] Jiang, W., J. Lennox, H. Schulzrinne, and K. Singh. 2001. Towards junk- ing the PBX: Deploying IP telephony. NOSSDAV 177-85. [4] Perkins, C. 2002. IP Mobility support for IPv4, IETF RFC 3344, August. [5] Johnson, D., C. Perkins, and J. Arkko, 2004. Mobility support in IPv6, RFC 3775 Internet Engineering Task Force, June. [6] Snoeren, A.C., and H. Balakrishnan. 2000. An end-to-end approach to host mobility. MobiCom, 155-66. [7] Perkins, C., and D. Johnson. 2001. "Route optimization in mobile IP," draft-ietf-mobileip-optim-11.txt Expired March 2002. [8] 3GPP TS 23.060.2001. General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Service Description, Stage 2, December. [9] The Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), http://www. 3gpp.org [10] Droms, R. 1997. Dynamic host configuration protocol, RFC 2131, March. [11] Myers, J., and M. Rose. 1996. Post office protocol-version 3, RF