mplsproj_4

Upload: yassir-gr

Post on 06-Apr-2018

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    1/15

    Course 34350: BroadBand Netw orks.

    M andatory Lab Report.

    Modeling MPLS Networks

    Martin Nord

    Jos Soler (studienr 020725 PHD)

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    2/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    2

    AccronymsATM - Asynchronous Transfer Mode

    FEC - Forward Equivalency Class

    FR - Frame Relay

    HTTP - Hyper Text Transfer Protocol

    IF - Interface

    IP - Internet Protocol

    LER - Label Edge Router

    LSP - Label Switched Path

    LSR - Label Switching Router

    MPLS - Multi Protocol Label Switching

    TAG - Tell-And-Go

    QoS - Quality of Service

    Introduction

    We have defined our own model to become familiar with all the steps in defining such

    a network.

    SM ART G OALS

    Purpose is to demonstrate different means of utilising MPLS in an IP centric network.

    We will focus on TE (load-balancing) and back-up recovery in case of node failure.

    The results will be observed by measuring delay and throughput. Hence we have

    defined SMART goals.

    Specific

    Measurable

    Acceptable

    Realisable

    Thorough

    About the model

    Project details

    We have created a project called MaJo_TE1 to do the lab. All the model files usedto build the project are found in the folder jsopc//In&Out/BBNmandatoty/files/ and

    \\comserv\mn\public\BBN. This project is modelled in Opnet 8.1

    The model has several scenarios, each one representing a step forward in our work as

    presented in the Scenarios section in this write-up.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    3/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    3

    Topology

    Figure 1. Network topology

    The topology is based on a 4-router core network in which node 0 and node 1 are the

    ingress and egress node. There are two disjoint routes between these edge routers. The

    routers are interconnected by OC3 links.

    Attachted to the ingress router is the node labelled Madrid, attached to the egress

    router are four nodes, Barna, Mallorca, Denia and server. From now on, these

    nodes are referred to by the names as indicated in Figure 1. These nodes are

    connected to the edge routers by DC3 links.

    ConfigurationMadrid, Barna, Mallorca and Denia are defined as workstations , while server is a

    HTTP server. The IP addresses for these nodes and the edge routers are configured

    manually. The two other IP routers are configured automatically by Opnet.

    The interfaces of edge routers is then configured manually for the nodes. The

    interface configuration for node 1 is shown in Table 1 as an example. More details

    can be found in the project files.

    Table 1. Interface configuration ofnode 1.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    4/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    4

    Several scenariosThe scenarios created and the aim of each are summarised below. More details are

    found in the section Scenarios.

    1 No_TE_initDefines the basic network, allows us to get used to Opnet, and

    is the starting point of our work.

    2 No_TE_congestion

    Modifies traffic to demonstrate that using traditional routing

    protocols may lead to congestion since all traffic follows the

    shortest path.

    3 TE_initial

    Upgrades core routers to MPLS, configures MPLS and FECs to

    balance load unidirectionally.

    4 TE_initial2

    Bidirectional LSPs are used.

    5 TE_initial3_nodefailure

    A node fails in the LSP no protection path is defined, and we

    see the effect on the traffic in the FEC that uses the LSP.

    6 PROTECT_1

    A backup LSP path is defined but not used.

    7 PROTECT_2

    Failure conditions are created and the backup path is used to

    protect from node failure.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    5/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    5

    MPLS primer

    MPLS represents the convergence of connection-oriented forwarding techniques and

    the Internet routing protocols. The precedents of MPLS (Ipsilons IP Switching,

    IBMs ARIS, Ciscos early TAG Switching, and Toshibas Cell Switch Routerarchitectures) leveraged the high performance cell-switching capabilities of ATM

    switch hardware and melded them together into a network using existing IP routing

    protocols. As standardization progressed, packet-based MPLS also emerged to

    simplify the mechanisms of packet processing within core routers, replacing full or

    partial header classification and longest-prefix-match lookups with simple index label

    lookups. MPLS offers one powerful tool unavailable to solutions based on

    conventional IP routers- the capability to forward packets over arbitrary non-shortest

    paths and emulate high-speed tunnels between non-label switched domains. Such

    traffic-engineering capabilities enable service providers to optimise the distribution of

    QoS sensitive and Best Effort traffic around their network. Additionally, MPLS can

    support metering, policing, marking, queuing, and scheduling behaviours ranging

    from the fine granularity of IntServ to the aggregated granularity of DiffServ- and

    offer them simultaneously on a single network.

    Simply replacing connectionless shortest-path forwarding with label-switched shortest

    path forwarding is not a major win. However, an LSP need not follow the shortest

    path between two edge LSRs. Although conventional IP routing protocols typically do

    not generate non-shortest path routes, external routing algorithms can be used to

    determine new routes for LSPs that result in more optimal distribution of loads around

    a network. This feature is a major advantage of MPLS over IntServ or DiffServ alone.

    Encoding Labels on Specific Links.

    MPLS forwarding is defined for a range of link-layer technologies, some of which are

    inherently label switching (ATM, FR) and others not (packet over SONET/ SDH

    (POS) and Ethernet). Although switching logically occurs on the label in the top stack

    entry, ATM and FR switch their native data units (cells and frames, respectively)

    based on a link layer copy of the top stack entry. For packet-based layers, the MPLS

    frame is simply placed within the links native frame format. The stacking scheme

    allows for LSPs to be tunnelled through other LSPs. The action of putting a packet

    onto a LSP constitutes a push of a MPLS Label Stack entry. The action of reaching

    the end of a LSP results in the top stack entry being removed (popped).

    Figure 2 MPLS encoding for PPP over SONET/SDH and ATM links.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    6/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    6

    Driving Per-hop behaviour.

    By definition a particular LSP is associated with a particular FEC. For Best Effort

    Services, the FEC is derived solely from topological considerations. However , three

    different solutions exist when additional edge-to-edge QoS requirements are takeninto account:

    - Each distinct queuing and scheduling behaviour may be encoded as a new

    FEC (LSP), ignoring the experimental field.

    - The Experimental field encodes up to eight queuing and scheduling

    behaviours for the same FEC (LSP).

    - The Experimental field encodes up to eight queuing and scheduling

    behaviours independent of FEC (LSP).

    The Label field can provide context from which per-hop queuing and scheduling

    parameters are determined. However, per hop behaviour is intimaly associated with a

    specific LSP because the entire Label field is also being used to determine a packetsnext hop (its path context). Distinct service classes require distinct LSPs if the

    experimental field is not being used. Likewise, distinct hop precedence levels require

    distinct LSPs.

    Figure 3: The label alone can provide per-hop behaviour context.

    If the experimental bits are used to provide additional classification context, up to

    eight additional permutations of service class and drop precedence are possible. These

    permutations may be determined within the context of particular LSPs or completely

    independent of the LSP. These approaches can significantly reduce the number of

    Label field values required to encode multiple service classes and drop precedencelevels across a MPLS network.

    Figure 4: Label and Experimental bits together provide per-hop behaviour.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    7/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    7

    Label-Switched Path Merging and QoS

    One way of reducing the amount of label space consumed within a MPLS network

    involves the use of LSP merging. It involves having two or more incoming labels map

    to a single downstream label at a core LSR. In essence traffice belonging to the same

    FEC but originating from different ingress LSRs is merged onto a single LSP at somepoint in the middle of the network. From the merging point onward, a single LSP

    replaces two or more LSPs that would otherwise have independently converged on the

    same egress LSR for the same FEC. Naturally, this technique reduces label

    consumption on all links downstream of the merge point.

    Edge behaviours

    At the edge of a MPLS network sits the label edge router (LER). A LER terminates

    and/or originates LSPs and performs both label-based forwarding and conventional IP

    rouing functions. On ingress to a MPLS domain, a LER accepts unlabeled packets and

    creates an initial MPLS frame by pussing one or more MPLS label entries. On egressthe LER terminates a LPS by popping the top MPLS stack entry and forwarding the

    remaining packet based on rules indicated by the popped label. Figure 5 shows a LER

    labelling an IP packet for transmission out of a MPLS interface. Conventional IP

    packet processing determines the FEC and, hence, the contents of a new packets

    initial MPLS Label Stack and its outbound queing and scheduling service. Once

    labelled, packets are transmitted into the core along the chosen LSP.

    Figure 5 : Simplified Ingress Label Edge Router.

    Hybrid LSRs may originate / terminate some LSPs while acting as a transit point for

    other LSPs (and edge for some traffic, a core for others). LSRs may even do both

    simultaneously when it supports the tunnelling of one LSP within another. At the

    ingress to such a tunnel, the LSR pushes a new label stack entry based on the ingress

    packets existing top label. At the egress from the LSP tunnel, the top-level label is

    popped, and the LSR then switches the remaining MPLS frame based on the new toplabel. LERs are also responsible for traffic conditioning which covers both classifying

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    8/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    8

    packets onto particular LSPs and rate shaping (policing) the traffic going onto

    particular LSPs to maintain overall service goals. A LER classifies incoming IP

    packets, using as much header information as necessary to map packets to correct LSP

    and to correctly set the experimental bits if appropiate.

    Traffic Engineering

    Topology driven MPLS may be combined with the per-hop behaviour described

    earlier to create a network capable of supporting specific edge-to-edge service levels.

    However, it doesnt assist the network operator in balancing the load around the nodes

    and links making up the networks core. Load balancing requires explicitly defining

    the cross-core routes each LSP takes in order to optimise the average and peak traffic

    loads on the various paths that may exist between any two LERs. Such explicit

    management of LSPs is often referred to as traffic engineering.

    Scenarios

    1 Pure IP

    Intro

    In the scenario No_TE_init we have defined background traffic between Madrid

    and 3 destinations: Barna, Mallorca and Denia. The dynamics and amplitude of the

    traffic allows an easy identification of the three flows. The start and end times for the

    flows to Barna, Mallorca and Denia are (10, 50), (10, 52) and (5, 54),

    respectively. The throughputs of each flow are indicated in Figure 6.

    We also have explitcitly modelled traffic, namely heavy HTTP browsing as definedin OPNETs traffic profiles. The purpose of this is to allow measurements on packet

    delay and processing delays, and furthermore in subsequent scenarios to have the

    possibility to use the traffic type as a FEC mapping criterion.

    Results

    Using traditional routing protocols, all the traffic follows the shortest path. This is

    illustrated in Figure 6, where the link from node 0 to node 2 carries all the traffic no

    traffic passes through node 6. We observe the traffic dynamics of the three flows. The

    total traffic of 43000 packets/second that passes through node 2 is less than its IP

    datagram forwarding rate of 50000 packets/second.

    For a one way distance of around 500 km, the round-trip propagation delay will be

    approximately 5 ms. The measured HTTP response times are around 20 ms. The

    HTTP server task processing time is around 6 ms, while the IP processing delay in the

    routers are approximately 0.2 ms. Some delay contributions from e.g. SDH/SONET

    constitute the remainging delay of around 8 ms. We will see the increased

    contributions from the IP processing delay when congestion arises in the next scenario

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    9/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    9

    Figure 6. Left: Throughputs at different links in the network. Right: Delays at different nodes.

    2 Congestion

    Intro

    In order to demonstrate the non-optimum performance in such a pure IP routing

    model, we increase the load that is to be processed by node 2. To achieve this, in the

    scenario No_TE_congestion, we create two additional nodes using node 2 as their

    only intermediate router, as illustrated in Figure 7. The background traffic source is

    Logroo and the destination is Zaragoza. The throughput in the (16, 45) period is of

    180000 packets/seconds.

    Clearly, the total traffic to be processed by the IP router exceeds the IP datagram-

    forwarding rate. The node will be congested, and we aim to study this by studying the

    HTTP traffic delay, which depends on the IP processing delay in the router.

    Figure 7. New network topology with two added nodes.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    10/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    10

    Results

    The throughput of the flows through the congested node is significantly reduced,

    because the totalt packet-forwarding rate of the router is 50000 packets/second.

    However, this limitation only occurs after 35 there is a period between 18 and 35

    during which the outgoing throughput from node 2 is around ~77000 packets/second.

    After 35 the outgoing throughput stabilises at 50000 packets/second. This may be aresult of the modelling of the background traffic, since in reality (or for explicit

    traffic) the IP router could not exceed its maximum packet-forwarding rate.

    Figure 8. Throughput

    The HTTP response time is significantly increased while the node is congested. The

    increase in HTTP page response time of ~14 ms can be directly attributed to the

    increase in IP processing delay of 7 ms, because it should be accounted for twice.

    Figure 9. Delay

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    11/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    11

    3 Load-balancing

    Scenario (TE_initial2)

    Intro

    The former case is a suitable example to demonstrate the TE capabilities of MPLS.

    The goal of the load balancing is to reduce the load of the congested node, making

    some traffic follow a non-shortest path through the network.

    In order to achieve this, we define a unidirectional LSP that goes from node 0 to node

    1 via node 6 and another one in the reverse direction. They are named balancing

    path and reverse balancing path.

    Figure 10. Network topology with LSPs (red and blue) specified.

    To specify the traffic that should use these LSPs, we define two FECs: a destination

    based (bound_Denia) and a traffic type based (HTTP traffic). A combination could

    also have been defined. The FEC details are illustrated in Figure 11.

    Figure 11. FEC details of all HTTP traffic and traffic going to Denia.

    The FECs must be assigned to the LSPs at the LER. This is done by mapping FECs to

    LSPs as indicated in Figure 12. The LER is responsible for studying the incomming

    traffic, find the FEC, push a MPLS label to the datagram and correctly output the

    MPLS packet as indicated in the LSP table.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    12/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    12

    Figure 12. One of the two FEC mappings used.

    Results

    We see from Figure 13 that the load is effectively split for Madrid outgoing traffic

    when it arrives at the LER, node 0, according to the FEC definition and FEC mappingdescribed above. Hence, traffic to Denia and HTTP traffic are independent of the load

    ofnode 2. The HTTP traffic can only be observed by zooming in on the graph due to

    its low throughput.

    Figure 13. Left: Load balancing based on FECs fromnode 0. Right: Zoom-in on low throughput

    HTTP traffic in the (node 0- node 6) link.

    In this scenario there were no back-up LSP; when a node or link in the LSP fails, the

    traffic in correspondings FECs is routed according to ordinary routing protocols. The

    MPLS header is not pushed on the IP datagram. To illustrate this Figure 14 shows thethroughput ofnode 0 to node 6and node 0 to node 2, when a failure in node 6occurs

    after ~12 minutes and recovers after 25 minutes. This is simulated in the scenario

    TE_initial3_nodefailure . The throughput is shown in the reverse direction in to be

    able to see the HTTP traffic only. Again, the background traffic is not affected by the

    LSR failure; we consider this to be a result of the background traffic modelling in

    Opnet.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    13/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    13

    Figure 14. When a LSR fails, traditional routing protocols governs explicit traffic. Modelled

    background traffic is not affected by LSR failure.

    4 Protection

    Intro

    Figure 15. The network topology with a backup LSP.

    In the scenario Protection_2, we now introduce a back-up path for the LSP through

    a new core IP router, node 4. In order to do this we define two unidirectional LSPs

    (backup balancing path and reverse backup balancing path) with the same source

    and destination as the previous ones. The node failure is modelled to be the same as in

    the previous scenario. Since only explictly modelled traffic is affected by the LSRfailure we only consider the HTTP FEC to simulate the back-up path. The back-up

    path configuration is illustrated in Figure 16.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    14/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    14

    Figure 16. Configuration of the backup path for the HTTP FEC.

    ResultsThe effect of the node failure can be observed in Figure 17. The traffic in the primary

    LSP path is 0 during failure, and is re-routed to the back-up path. The rerouting of

    HTTP traffic is fast; the reduction of throughput at any time is insignificant. When the

    LSR in the primary LSP recovers, traffic is rerouted to the original LSP.

    Figure 17. The HTTP traffic is rerouted to the backup LSP during failure ofnode 6.

    DiscussionUsing background traffic is a trade-off between time-efficient and accurate modelling:

    On one hand, it is a highly practical and time efficient way of loading the network and

    allows us to demonstrate many aspects of IP routing and MPLS. On the other hand, it

    does not accurately reflect the IP routers dynamic behaviour when it comes to

    maximum packet forwarding rate, nor events like node failure in a LSP. Explicit

    traffic is required for measuring e.g. delay and packet loss, and in a more accurate

    model only this type of traffic should be used. However this could lead to an

    excessive simulation time required, considering the goals of demonstrating main

    OPNET features and TE in the context of MPLS.

  • 8/3/2019 MPLSproj_4

    15/15

    34350 BBN Mandatory Lab Report Martin Nord

    Jos Soler

    15

    ConclusionWe have acquired basic knowledge of the OPNET simulation tool. Basic IP network

    has been configured, and demonstrated inadequacies in the traditional IP routing

    protocols (here: OSPF). MPLS has been succesfully implemented to achieve TE; both

    load balancing and protection has been demonstrated. Further applications of MPLSlike VPNs could have been demonstrated using this model and the applied technique.

    However, we prefer to focus on the main project (GMPLS modelling) in the

    remaining time frame of the course.

    Hence, the SMART goals defined in the Introduction section have been (IOHO: in

    our humble opinion) fulfilled.

    REFERENCES

    [1] MPLS Technology and Applications. Davie & Rekhter.Morgan Kauffman

    publishers. ISBN: 1558606564.

    [2] QoS in IP Networks. Foundations for a Multi-Service Internet. Grenville

    Armitage. Macmillan Technical Publishing. ISBN: 1578701899.

    [3] Internet Performance Survival Guide. QoS Strategies for Multiservice Networks.

    Geoff Huston. ISBN: 0471378089

    [4]Modelling MPLS Networks. Mandatory Lab Description. Henrik Christiansen.

    [5]MPLS Model Description. OPNET Documentation.

    [6]Representing Network Traffic. OPNET Documentation.

    [7] Standard Network Applications. OPNET Documentation.

    [7] Configuring Applications and Profiles. OPNET Documentation.

    [8] Simulation Methodology for Deployment of MPLS. OPNET Documentation.

    [9] Simulation-based Analysis of MPLS Traffic Engineering. OPNET Documentation.

    [10] www.playboy.com (HTTP traffic modelled as heavy web browsing)