Abstract：In heterogeneous networks, the result of network selection should come out according to subjective factors and objective factors, i.e. the users preferences and network objective attributes. But in limited scheme multi-objective decision-making of comprehensive evaluation method, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has the characteristics of strong subjectivity, the characteristics of the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is true, intuitive, and reliable. Therefore, concerning the features of the two methods, in the network selection issue, the user preference aspects in the choice of AHP method, network status using TOPSIS method, a kind of user preferences and network status collaborative judgment network selection algorithm was puts forward. The simulation results show that, without considering load conditions, the proposed algorithm can effectively choose the suitable network for mobile terminal current business.
BARI F, LEUNG V C M. Automated network selection in a heterogeneous wireless network environment[J]. IEEE Network, 2007, 21(1), 34-40.
[2]
WANG L, BINRT D.MADM-based network selection in heterogeneous wireless networks: A simulation study[C]// 1st International Conference on Wireless Communication, Vehicular Technology, Information Theory and Aerospace & Electronic Systems Technology. New York: IEEE, 2009:17-20.
[3]
SGORA A, VERGADOS D, CHATZIMISIOS P. An access network selection algorithm for heterogeneous wireless environments[C]// Proceedings of the The IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications.Washington, DC:IEEE Computer Society, 2010:890-892.
[4]
BAKMAZ B, BOJKOVIC Z, BAKMAZ M. Network selection algorithm for heterogeneous wireless environment[C]// IEEE 18th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications. New York: IEEE, 2007：1-4.
SONG QINGYANG, JAMALIPUR A. Network selection in an integrated wireless LAN and UMTS environment using mathematical modeling and computing techniques[J]. IEEE Wireless Communications, 2005,12(3): 42-48.
2011, Vol. 31 
