Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Multi Protocol Label Switching Recovery Mechanism
Multi Protocol Label Switching Recovery Mechanism
Mechanism
Sulalah Qais Mirkar, Dr.Vijay Thakurdas
Raisinghani
School of Technology Management and
Engineering (MPSTME), Dept ofIT,
NMiMS Deemed-to-be University
sulalah.mirkar@nmim s.edu, rvijay@ieee.org
Abstract-A
circuit
to
sender
to
receiver.
data
switched
computer can
video from
be used
interrup ted.
In
this
paper,
we
analyze
the
different
Resource
Reservation
or
Protocol
(RSVP-TE)
[1][6]
Distribution
Protocol(CR-LDP)
with
Traffic
constraint-based
[1].
Engineering
Routing
label
Label
switched
recovery models.
on
Index
Makam's
These are
to
protect
driven mode.
I. INTRODUCTION
Iti
Protocol
label
Switching
(MPLS)
advantage that all links and nodes on the working path are
certain
that the FIS has to be propagated all the way back to the
[I]
is
[I]
is
technology
which
overcomes
as
like
bandwidth
and
492
and at the same time the recovery model should enable quick
failure
subtypes
occurs
of
on
the
protection
working
switching
path.
1+1 ("one
plus
one")
I: I ("one
for
This model
is
less
expensive
as compare to
I+I
path is setup for the entire working path. The backup path is
disjoint
from
the
working path.
is
In
this model as the FIS has to travel from the failed node to
upstream ingress node (PSL), the delays in recovery initiation
are large. If sending rate is high from the source node than the
number of packets dropped are high.
In Haskin's Model [3], if a fault is identified in the current
working path then traffic will be reversed from the faulty
node to ingress upstream LSR. Reverse traffic works as a
Fault Indication Signal. So it reduces the time required for
the FIS to reach the ingress LSR. In this model, until the path
I,
2014
contains
the topology
493
driven mode.
ii) Node 1 is the ingress node or Path Switch LSR (PSL) and
node 2 is the egress Path Merge LSR (PML).
a) 6-node chain
i) Link failure between LSR
I and 3
follows.
neighbors.
Distribution
Protocol)
mapping
request
sent
by
the
is
0-0070@@@@
-11=
-I
0G)0@-@)0)'-@
label into the packet and forwards the labeled packet to the
output port. Node 3 LSR, receives the labeled packet from
the Node
the label
and
sends
then
I I. It
path),
the
downstream node
sends
fault
o - 0.;,0-12J-0
f."\ '" r:;'\
f?I
(.;\
f.';\
@'
r.?I -I @
- t;;\
'-'V,I.!,!;13 .
I
;1
I
:
0-@-GY-@!.!.!@.!.!.@.!.!.@
...
...
..
16
This will reduce the time required for the fault indication to
failure occurs between LSR 5 and 7, the LSR 5 sends the FIS
to ingress LSR.
(';:\
f7\
I I
r:::'\
II I
f?\
t';\
\Q,J -\lI-0-0- 0
III
I
(D-G)-@-@
Figure 2. NAM trace file visualization of an ASQ Model with 3 node chain
20-node
chains.
While
comparison
considers
two
.........
.........
t::?\
I
@
Figure 5.12-chain Control-driven ASQ model after 5-7 link failure to backup
path
494
20 J 4
-tiJ;
...........
I
..........
@-@-' @
;1
t:":;\ t::?\
' -
c)
d)
I) Control-Driven Mode:
a)
c) 20-node chain
'"
"
<:
0
06
..
0.4
0.3
..
0.1
0.5
0.2
.5
E
1=
12-Chain
6-Chain
0.350
20-Chain
0.479
0.412
0.320
0.371
0.372
I-Makam Model
I--Proposed Model
---
b)
Figure 10, shows the reception of first label data packet at the
backup path LSR, in case of working path failure. As shown in
the graph, a packet switches faster to backup path in the ASQ
model as compared to Makam's model.
o
0.6
<II
..,
c:
.5
QI
E
F
0.5
0.4
0.3
...
--=
0.2
0.1
a
6-Chain
-+-Makam Model
I -Proposed Model l
0.351
0.322
I
I
I
12-Chain
0.435
0.373
I
I
I
20-Chain
0.481
0.415
c)
Results
driven and
data
driven
b)
2014
495
0.8
"
<II
"C
0
u
OJ
0.6
0.4
<II
OJ
0.2
.5:
E
i=
I
I
....--:::
II)
"C
0.5
0
u
.,
6-Chain
-+-Makam Model
12-Chain
0.3
0.586
0.431
--Proposed Model
0.1
0.725
0.454
0.380
0.2
E
i=
20-Chain
0.543
6-Chain
i--Makam Model
I --- Proposed Model
Figure II. Labels are removed from the packet in Control-driven mode
...
0.4
.:
.,
d)
0.6
"
------
20-Chain
12-Chain
0.433
0.351
0.478
0.373
0.322
0.412
After removing a label from the packet, the egress router will
send the packet to the destination non-MPLS router. In fig.l2,
c)
0.9
'"
0.7
0.6
0.5
:E
0.4
.5
OJ
E
F
0.3
..-
0.6
0
u
0.5
.,II)
.
6-Chain
12-Chain
0.456
0.598
20-Chain
0.3
0.466
0.391
:
.,
0.554
0.1
0
6-Chain
i Makam Model
I - Proposed Model
---..-------
0.2
E
i=
0.841
....--
0.4
:E
--Proposed Model
0.432
.......
20-Chain
12-Chain
0.724
0.584
0.454
0.380
0.540
Figure 15 . Labels are removed from the packet in Data-driven mode
2) Data-Driven Mode:
a)
II)
"C
"
0.1
.....
0.7
0.2
0
/"'"
-------
0.8
0.8
d)
After removing a label from the packet, the egress router will
an
in ASQ model
as
"
<II
"C
0
u
0.4
0.3
OJ
E
i=
I
I
0.5
OJ
.5:
"
<II
"C
0.6
----
r-::::::
.5:
OJ
E
i=
0.2
0.1
0
6-Chain
12-Chain
20-Chain
--Makam Model
0.350
0.412
0.476
---Proposed Model
0.320
0.351
0.372
b)
0
OJ
I
I
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
--
--
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
6-Chain
.......Makam Model
0.456
--Proposed Model
0.392
20-Chain
12-Chain
0.596
0.466
0.735
0.551
B. Analysis of Results
The ASQ Model performs better in both control driven and
data driven mode as compared to Makam's Model as given
below.
i) Control Driven mode
We see the best performance of ASQ in the 20 chain case. As
the number of network nodes increases in, the Makkam
496
20 J 4
to predefined backup path. The first FIS takes 28% more time
than
to
Makam.
Table
below
summarizes
the
results
the
backup
path.
driven mode.
Metric for
comparison
ASQ Model in
milliseconds
Makam Model in
milliseconds
I.
Early
notification to
ingress node
0.372 ms
0. 479 ms
2.
Switching time
0.415 ms
0. 481 ms
3.
Reception of
data at
destination
0.554 ms
O. 84l ms
FIS takes
the ASQ model with other recovery models and to evaluate the
behavior with different traffic conditions.
REFERENCES
[I]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
TABLE II
[7]
MAKAM
Metric for
comparison
ASQ Model
observation in
milliseconds
Makam Model
observation in
milliseconds
I.
Early
notification to
ingress node
0.372 ms
0. 476 ms
2.
Switching time
0. 412 ms
0.478 ms
3.
Reception of
data at
destination
0.551 ms
0. 735 ms
No.
[8]
[9]
[10]
2014
497