## 2 Algorithms And Methods
### Standard Parameters to Assess the Quality of the Proposed Work  
The standard parameters for evaluation of the proposed work are discussed as follows.  
1. Consistent (C)--Handover is considered \"consistent\" when it can maintain the availability of all applications running on the cell phone, providing nonstop start-to-finish information administration during switch-over within a session and offering both low inertness and negligible parcel misfortune.
2. Bundle misfortune (BM)--This is a measure of the bundles dropped during the VHO process. Numerically, it tends to be communicated as follows: bundle misfortune for vertical handover = (1--no. of bundles received)/Total no. of bundles sent. Here, bundle misfortune is calculated for the handover period only.
3. Throughput (TH)--This refers to the information rate conveyed to the portable terminals during handover. It is generally desirable to obtain higher throughput during handover to a specific system.
4. Handover latency (HL)--This alludes to the length between the commencement and finish of the handover procedure. With an increase in the unpredictability of the VHO procedure, there will be more handover deferral. In this manner, for deferral-sensitive sight or sound sessions, the decrease of the handover postponement is significant. Handover deferral is the whole of every individual whose engagement with the handover is deferred. It can be written as follows: \[T_{handover}=TL_{2}+T_{sig}+T_{d}+T_{IP}\] (5) where \(TL_{2}\) is the time required to build up layer 2 availability between the versatile hub and passage or base station of the new passageway; \(T_{sig}\) is the time required for trading control messages; \(T_{d}\) is the single-direction delay for an information bundle in the new system; and \(T_{IP}\) is the IP address procurement delay in the new system.
5. The number of handovers (h)-- The number of handovers included should be low, as continuous handovers would reason wastage of system assets.
6. Handover failure probability (HF)--A handover failure happens when the handover is started, but the objective system does not have adequate assets to effectively finish it. For a given quantity of handoffs all throughout the span of call, the handover failure probability is given as \(1-(1-Ph,j)h\), where Phj denotes the probability that a handoff attempt for a call of type j is blocked.
7. Handover protocol overhead (PO)--This refers to all of the overhead caused by the convention for handover flagging and the overhead of the extra bytes sent with every datum parcel. Thus, \[P.O.=Overhead~{}HO+Overhead~{}A.D.\] (6)
8. Vertical handover process evaluation index--This gives an indication regarding the fitting and adequacy of the handover procedure. This list can be determined as follows: \[VHO_{I}=ws_{N(Sj)}+wPL_{N(1/PLj)}+A\] (7) \[A=wTH_{N(THj)}+wHD_{N(1/HDj)}+wHF_{N(1/HFj)}+wPO_{N(1/POi)}\] (8) where ws, wPL, wTH, wHD, wHF, and wPO refer to loads allocated to the previously mentioned paradigm as per their significance, while \(N(I)\) is the standardization capacity of the ith paradigm. Since each system parameter has an alternate unit, no standardization procedure is required. By this strategy, one can conduct a quantitative appraisal of the different VHO algorithms. The higher the estimation of \(VHO\) for a specific VHO algorithm, the more proficient the handover choice procedure. This will be very useful to specialists in choosing whether a given VHO algorithm is appropriate for a specific handover condition. Furthermore, \(VHO\) satisfactory qualities may change for various classes of traffic types. For example, non-constant traffic (e.g., content information, email, and so forth) can endure enormous postponents, so a high estimation of handover deferral is common, which suggests that low scores for \(VHO_{I}\) for such traffic types are satisfactory. On the other hand, constant traffic (e.g., video and voice) is exceptionally sensitive to postponement, so high scores for handover deferral are unsuitable.