Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Analysis of Load Balancing for a New Approach to Support Traffic Engineering in IPv6 Networks


Affiliations
1 Universidad Catolica de Pereira, Risaralda
2 Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Bucaramanga
 

Objective: To propose a solution to support traffic engineering in IPv6 networks; such proposal is based on IPv6 capabilities. Methods/Analysis: Our proposal uses the IPv6 flow label field for packet switching in IPv6 networks and it also uses extended traffic engineering protocols like RSVP-TE and OSPFv3-TE. An advantage of our approach is that an MPLS transport network is not required to support traffic engineering. Our solution makes use of the tunneling concept, which has a high potential to support traffic engineering because it allows separation of different traffic among service/users in different tunnels. In this paper, we describe the main characteristics of our proposal and also, we present the evaluation of load balancing, which is a typical situation in traffic engineering studies. We compare our approach with MPLS performance because it is a technology commonly used to support traffic engineering. Findings/Results: Results show that load balancing in our solution has similar performance than MPLS when the number of tunnels over links is optimized. Improvements: This evaluation proves that our layer-3 proposal has traffic engineering capabilities in IPv6 networks independently of lower layers.
User

  • Rosen E, Viswanathan A, Callon R. Multiprotocol label switching architecture. IETF RFC3031; 2001. p. 1–61.

  • Deering S, Hinden R. Internet protocol. Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. IETF RFC2460; 1998. p. 1–39.

  • Dhamdhere A, Luckie M, Huffaker B. Measuring the deployment of IPv6: Topology, Routing and Performance. Internet Measurement Conference (IMC); 2012. p. 537–50.

  • Czyz J, Allman M, Zhang J, Iekel-Johnson S, Osterweil E, Bailey M. Measuring IPv6 adoption. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM. 2014; 44(4):87–98.

  • Hu Q, Carpenter B. Survey of proposed use cases for the IPv6 flow label. IETF RFC6294; 2011. p. 1–18.

  • Becerra LY, Padilla JJ. Review of approaches for the use of the label flow of IPv6 header. IEEE Latin America Transactions. 2014; 12(8):1602–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TLA.2014.7014534.

  • Hinden R. Simple internet protocol plus white paper. IETF RFC1710; 1994.

  • Deering S, Hinden R. Internet protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. IETF RFC1883; 1995.

  • Metzler J, Hauth S. An end-to-end usage of the IPv6 flow label. Work Program; 2000. p. 1–5. PMid: 17016272.

  • Conta A, Carpenter B. A proposal for the IPv6 flow label specification. IETF Internet-Draft; 2001.

  • Conta A, Rajahalme J. A model for diffserv use of the IPv6 flow label specification. IETF Internet-Draft; 2001.

  • Hagino J. Socket API for IPv6 flow label field. IETF Internet-Draft; 2001.

  • Rajahalme J, Conta A, Carpenter B, Deering S. IPv6 flow label specification. IETF RFC3697; 2004.

  • Amante S, Carpenter B, Jiang S. Rationale for update to the IPv6 flow label specification. IETF RFC6436; 2011.

  • Amante S, Carpenter B, Jiang S, Rajahalme J. Ipv6 flow label specification. IETF RFC6437; 2011.

  • Chakravorty S. Challenges of IPv6 flow label implementation. Proceedings IEEE MILCOM2008; 2008.

  • Chakravorty S, Bush J, Bound J. IPv6 label switching architecture. Work Program; 2008.

  • Beckman M. IPv6 dynamic Flow Label Switching (FLS). IETF Internet-Draft; 2007.

  • Nichols K, Blake S, Baker F, Black D. Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers. IETF RFC2474; 1998.

  • Roberts L, Harford J. In-band QoS signaling for IPv6. Work Program; 2005.

  • Chin-Ling C. A study of IPv6 labeling forwarding model supporting diffserv. Procedia Engineering. Elsevier. 2011; 15:5590–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.1037

  • Banerjee R, Malhotra S, MM. A modified specification for the use of the IPv6 flow label for providing an efficient Quality of Service using a hybrid approach. Working Group; 2002. p. 1–25.

  • Lin C, Tseng P, Hwang W. End-to-end QoS provisioning by flow label in IPv6. ICIS; 2006.

  • Lee I, Kim S. A QoS improvement scheme for real-time traffic using IPv6 flow labels. International Conference on Computational Science and its Applications; 2004. p. 278–85.

  • Prakash B. Using the 20 bit flow label field in the IPv6 header to indicate desirable Quality of Service on the internet. University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science; 2004.

  • Aazam M, Syed AM, Eui-Nam H. Redefining flow label in IPv6 and MPLS headers for End to End QoS in virtual networking for thin client. 3 19th Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC); 2013. p. 585–90.

  • Hassan R, Jabbar R. End-to-End (e2e) Quality of Service (QoS) for IPv6 video streaming. 19th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT) IEEE; 2017. p. 1–4.

  • Glennan T, Leckie C, Erfani SM. Improved classification of known and unknown network traffic flows using semisupervised machine learning. Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy; 2016. p. 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40367-0_33.

  • Yin A, Zhang S. Design and implementation of trusted routing strategy based on IPv6 flow identification. 10th International Conference on Communications and Networking in China (ChinaCom); 2015. p. 887–92. PMid: 25466433.

  • Padilla J, Paradells J. Intserv6: An approach to support QoS over IPv6 wired and wireless networks. European Transactions on Telecommunications. 2007; 19(6):1–19.

  • Padilla JJ, Paradells J, Rodriguez A. Supporting QoS over IPv6 wireless networks with IntServ6. IEEE 17th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications; 2006. p. 1–6.

  • Doan H. Flow-based forwarding scheme and performance analysis in mobile IPv6 networks. 8th International Conference Advanced Communication Technology. 2006; 3:1490–6.

  • Zheng T, Wang L, Daqing G. A flow label based QoS scheme for End-to-End mobile services. ICNS 2012: The Eighth International Conference on Networking and Services; 2012. p. 169–74.

  • Stephane O, Samuel P. HPMRSVP-TE: A hierarchical proxy mobile resource reservation protocol for traffic engineering. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference; 2006. p. 1–5.

  • Tai WY, Eng Tan Ch, Ping Lau S. Towards utilizing flow label IPv6 in implicit source routing for Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) in Wireless Ad Hoc Network. IEEE Symposium on Computers and Informatics (ISCI); 2012. p. 101–6. PMCid: PMC3363133.

  • Donley C, Erichsen K. Using the flow label with Dual-Stack Lite. Work Group; 2011.

  • Carpenter B, Amante S. Using the IPv6 flow label for equal cost multipath routing and link aggregation in tunnels. IETF Internet-Draft, Draft; 2011.

  • Hartmond F, Rouhi M, Scholz D. Detecting load balancers in the Internet. Proceedings of the Seminars Future Internet (FI) and Innovative Internet Technologies and Mobile Communication (IITM) Focal Topic: Advanced Persistent Threats; Munich, Germany. 2017. p. 17–23.

  • Braden R, Clark D, Shenke S. Integrated services in the internet architecture: An overview. IETF RFC1633; 1994.

  • Melnikov DA, Lavrukhin YN, Durakovsky AP, Gorbatov VS, Petrov VR. Access control mechanism based on entity authentication with IPv6 Header “flow label” field. 3rd International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud; 2015. p. 158–64.

  • Blake S. Use of the IPv6 flow label as a transport-layer nonce to defend against off-path spoofing attacks. Work Group; 2009.

  • Hendriks L, Velan P, Schmidt R, de O., Boer P-T de, Pras A. flow-based detection of IPv6-specific network layer attacks. IFIP International Conference on Autonomous Infrastructure, Management and Security; 2017. p. 137–42.

  • Bobade S, Goudar R. Secure data communication using protocol steganography in IPv6. International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation. 2015. p. 275–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCUBEA.2015.59

  • Becerra LY, Padilla JJ. Study of proposals for supporting internet traffic engineering. Entre Ciencia e Ingeniería. 2012; 6(11):53–76.

  • Fortz B, Thorup M. Internet traffic engineering by optimizing OSPF weights. Internet Traffic Engineering by Optimizing OSPF Weights; 2000. p. 519–28.

  • Fortz B, Rexford J, Thorup M. Traffic engineering with traditional IP routing protocols. IEEE Communications Magazine. 2002; 40(10):118–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/ MCOM.2002.1039866.

  • Thorup M, Fortz B. Optimizing OSPF/IS-IS weights in a changing world. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications. 2002; 20(4):756–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2002.1003042.

  • Ericsson M, Resende M, Pardalos P. A genetic algorithm for the weight setting problem in OSPF routing. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization. 2002; 6(3):299–333. https:// doi.org/10.1023/A:1014852026591.

  • Gojmerac I, Ziegler T, Ricciato F, Reichl P. Adaptive multipath routing for dynamic traffic engineering. IEEE GLOBECOM. 2003; 6:3058–62.

  • Wang J. Edge-based traffic engineering for OSPF networks. Computer Network. 2005; 48(4):605–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2004.11.008.

  • Abrahamsson H, Bjorkman M. Robust traffic engineering using L-balanced weight-settings in OSPF/IS-IS. Sixth International Conference on Broadband Communications, Networks and Systems; 2009. p. 1–8. PMid: 19228145. https://doi.org/10.4108/ICST.BROADNETS2009.7184.

  • Xu K, Liu H, Liu J, Shen M. One more wight is enough: Toward the optimal traffic engineering with OSPF. 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems; 2011. p. 836–46.

  • Xu K, Shen M, Liu H, Liu J, Li F, Li T. Achieving optimal traffic engineering using a generalized routing framework. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems. 2016; 27(1):51–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TPDS.2015.2392760.

  • Awduche D. Requirements for traffic engineering over MPLs. IETF RFC2702; 1999.

  • Daniel AO. MPLS and traffic engineering in IP Networks. IEEE Communications Magazine. 1999; 37(12):42–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/35.809383.

  • Karaman A. Constraint-based routing in traffic engineering. IEEE Communications Magazine; 2006. p. 49–54.

  • Nayak P, Murty GR. Survey on constrained based path selection QoS routing algorithms: MCP and MCOP problems. Journal of Information Systems and Communication. 2013; 4(1):1–6.

  • Farinacci D, Fuller V, Meyer D, Lewis D. The locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). IETF RFC6830; 2013.

  • Farinacci D, Kowal M, Lahiri P. LISP traffic engineering use-cases. Draft-Farinacci-lisp-te-11; 2016.

  • Saucez D, Donnet B, Iannone L, Bonaventure O. Interdomain traffic engineering in a locator/identifier separation context. IEEE Internet Network Management Workshop (INM); 2008. p. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ INETMW.2008.4660330

  • Li K, Wang S, Wang X. Edge router selection and traffic engineering in LISP-capable networks. Journal of Communications and Networks. 2011; 13(6):612–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/JCN.2011.6157477.

  • Li K, Wang S, Xu S, Wang X. ERMAO: An enhanced intradomain traffic engineering approach in LISP-capable Networks. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference GLOBECOM 2011; 2011. p. 1–5.

  • Herrmann D, Turba M, Kuijper A, Schweizer I. Inbound interdomain traffic engineering with LISP. 39th Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks; 2014. p. 458–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/LCN.2014.6925816.

  • Jeong T, Liy J, Hyun J, Yoo J-H, Hong JW-K. Experience on the development of LISP-enabled services: An ISP perspective. Proceedings of the 1st IEEE Conference on Network Softwarization (NetSoft); 2015. p. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/NETSOFT.2015.7116159.

  • Nguyen HDD, Secci S. LISP-EC: Enhancing LISP with Egress Control. IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN); 2016. https:// doi.org/10.1109/CSCN.2016.7785189.

  • Filsfils C, Previdi S, Decraene B, Litkowski S, Shakir R. Segment routing architecture. Draft-IETF-spring-segmentrouting11; 2017.

  • Filsfils C, Sivabalan S, Nanduri M, Lin S, Bogdanov A, Horneffer M. Segment routing policy for traffic engineering. Raft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-00; 2017.

  • Bhatia R, Hao F, Kodialam M, Lakshman TV. Optimized network traffic engineering using segment routing. IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM); 2015. p. 657–65. PMid: 25799108 PMCid: PMC4385177.

  • Rabah G, Olivier D, Samer L, Texier G. Label encoding algorithm for MPLS segment routing. IEEE 15th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA); 2016. p. 113–7.

  • Salsano S, Siracusano G, Luca V, Luca D, Pier L. PSMRPoor Man’s Segment Routing, a minimalistic approach to segment routing and a traffic engineering use case. IEEE/ IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium; 2016. p. 598–604.

  • Moreno E, Beghelli A, Cugini F. Traffic engineering in segment routing networks. Computer Network. 2017; 114:23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2017.01.006.

  • Balbinot L, Andrade M, Tarouco L, Roesler V. IP next generation label switching. IEEE Workshop on IP Operations and Management; 2002. p. 21–5.

  • Ishiguro K, Manral V, Davey A, Lindem A. Traffic engineering extensions to OSPF Version 3. IETF RFC5329; 2008.

  • Awduche D. RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels. IETF RFC3209; 2001.

  • Younis O, Fahmy S. Constraint-based routing in the Internet: Basic principles and recent research. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials. 2003; 5(1):2–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2003.5342226.

  • Becerra LY, Padilla JJ, Ba-ol JL. A survey on constraintsbased routing algorithms: Objectives traffic engineering and Quality of Service. Entre Ciencia e Ingeniería. 2017; (21):112–22.

  • Medhi D, Ramasay K. Network routing: Algorithms, protocols and architectures. Morgan Kaufmann; 2007. p. 166–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012088588-6/50010-3.

  • Deering S, Hinden R. Internet protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. IETF RFC8200; 2017.

  • Pioro M, Medhi D. Routing, flow and capacity design in communication and computer networks. 1st Ed. Morgan Kaufmann; 2004. p. 1–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978012557189-0/50002-0.


Abstract Views: 201

PDF Views: 0




  • Analysis of Load Balancing for a New Approach to Support Traffic Engineering in IPv6 Networks

Abstract Views: 201  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Line Y. Becerra
Universidad Catolica de Pereira, Risaralda
Jhon J. Padilla
Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Bucaramanga

Abstract


Objective: To propose a solution to support traffic engineering in IPv6 networks; such proposal is based on IPv6 capabilities. Methods/Analysis: Our proposal uses the IPv6 flow label field for packet switching in IPv6 networks and it also uses extended traffic engineering protocols like RSVP-TE and OSPFv3-TE. An advantage of our approach is that an MPLS transport network is not required to support traffic engineering. Our solution makes use of the tunneling concept, which has a high potential to support traffic engineering because it allows separation of different traffic among service/users in different tunnels. In this paper, we describe the main characteristics of our proposal and also, we present the evaluation of load balancing, which is a typical situation in traffic engineering studies. We compare our approach with MPLS performance because it is a technology commonly used to support traffic engineering. Findings/Results: Results show that load balancing in our solution has similar performance than MPLS when the number of tunnels over links is optimized. Improvements: This evaluation proves that our layer-3 proposal has traffic engineering capabilities in IPv6 networks independently of lower layers.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2018%2Fv11i35%2F122033