Interoperability and Reliability of Multiplatform MPLS VPN: Comparison of Traffic Engineering with RSVP-TE Protocol and LDP Protocol

Authors

  • Nanang Ismail UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung
  • Eki Ahmad Zaki UIN Sunan Gunung Djati
  • Muhamad Arghifary UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21512/commit.v11i2.2105

Keywords:

Interoperability, Reliability, Traffic Engineering, MPLS VPN, RSVP Protocol, LDP Protocol

Abstract

One of the alternatives to overcome network scalability problem and maintaining reliability is using MPLS VPN network. In reallity, the current network is already using a multiplatform of several different hardware vendors, i.e., Cisco and Juniper platforms. This paper discusses the comparison of the simulation results to see interoperability of multiplatform MPLS VPN and
reliability through traffic engineering using RSVP-TE and LDP protocols. Both the RSVP and LDP protocols are tested on a stable network and in a recovery mode,
as well as non-load conditions and with additional traffic load. The recovery mode is the condition after the failover due to termination of one of the links in the network. The no-load condition means that the network is not filled with additional traffic. There is only traffic from the measurement activity itself. While network conditions with an additional load are conditions where there is an additional UDP packet traffic load of 4.5 Mbps in addition to the measurement load itself. On a stable network and without additional traffic load, the average delay on LDP protocol is 59.41 ms, 2.06 ms jitter, 0.08% packet
loss, and 8.99 Mbps throughput. Meanwhile, on RSVP protocol, the average delay is 52.40 ms, 2.39 ms jitter, 12.18% packet loss, and 7.80 Mbps throughput. When failover occurs and on recovery mode, LDP protocol is
48% of packet loss per 100 sent packets while on RSVP packet loss percentage is 35.5% per 100 sent packets. Both protocols have interoperability on the third layer of multiplatform MPLS VPN, but on heavy loaded traffic condition, RSVP protocol has better reliability than the LDP protocol.

Author Biographies

Nanang Ismail, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung

Electrical Engineering Department Faculty of Science & Technology

Eki Ahmad Zaki, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati

Electrical Engineering Department Faculty of Science & Technology

Muhamad Arghifary, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung

Electrical Engineering Department Faculty of Science & Technology

References

S. Gatot, “Qos analysis on mpls-vpn: Influences of 3des/aes encryption on ip-based video telephony,” Master’s thesis, Universitas Indonesia: Depok, 2013.

R. Safitri, “Implementation and comparison analysis of qos on mpls-based vpn network, using ripv2, eigrp and ospf protocols againts ipsec tunneling for ip-based video converence services,”

Master’s thesis, Universitas Indonesia, 2010.

A. A. Adewale, E. R. Adagunodo, S. N. John, and C. Ndujiuba, “A comparative simulation study of ip, mpls, mpls-te for latency and packet loss reduction over a wan,” International Journal of Networks and Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2016.

I. Mangal and D. Bajaj, “A review of multiprotocol label switching: Protocol for traffic engineering on internet,” International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 137–140, 2014.

M. Hidayat and Risanuri, “Comparison of transport protocol performance on mpls and non mpls,” Master’s thesis, Universitas Gajah Mada, 2009.

R. T. Murade, P. M. Ingale, R. U. Kale, and S. S. Sayyad, “Comparative analysis of ip, atm and mpls with their qos,” International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 112–115, 2013.

A. Al Mamun, T. R. Sheltami, H. Ali, and S. Anwar, “Performance evaluation of routing protocols for video conference over mpls vpn network,” Journal of Ubiquitous Systems & Pervasive Networks,

vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 01–06, 2016.

M. Asif, Z. Farid, M. Lal, and J. Qayyum, “Analysis of the similarities and differences between mpls label distribution protocols rsvp and crldp,” International Journal of Computer Science, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 96–103, 2012.

D. U. E, “Penerapan resource reservation protocol pada jaringan internet protokol,” Widya Teknika, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 27–31, 2011.

G. U. Rehman, S. Muhammad, A. Cia, M. Asif, and S. Rehman, “Scalablity analysis of mpls label distribution protocols rsvp,” VAWKUM Transactions on Computer Sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 20–25, 2015.

M. Asif, Z. Farid, M. Lal, and J. Qayyum, “Mplsa choice of signaling protocol,” International Journal of Computer and Science, vol. 9, pp. 289–295, 2012.

K. Firdaus, “Application of multi-protocol label switching (mpls) technoogy on computer networks (case study: Elkon lab, bppt),” Bachelor Thesis, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, 2009.

M. Chaitou and H. Charara, “Multicast in multi protocol label switching: A comparison study between ldp and rsvp-te,” International Journal of Information and Network Security, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 471–481, 2013.

R. P. Adri, G. Abdullah, and I. Y. Pratama, “Analysis and design of mpls vpn network testbed with traffic engineering and qos at the center for information and communications technology bppt,” Master’s thesis, Bina Nusantara University, 2010.

A. Zainuri, “Implementation and analysis voip services on mpls network using traffic engineering,” Master’s thesis, Universitas Dian Nuswantoro, 2013.

Q. Q. Zhao and H. Chen, “System and method for point to multipoint inter-domain multiprotocol label switching traffic engineering path calculation,” Jan. 2013, uS Patent 8,351,418.

N. Ismail, M. Arghifary, E. Zaki, and W. Dimas, “Traffic engineering simulation using rsvp-te protocol on 3rd layer multiplatform mpls vpn,” in Proceeding of SICEST, 2016, pp. 342–346.

Downloads

Published

2017-10-31