=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=The Evaluation of Performance in Flow Label and Non Flow Label Approach Based on IPv6 Technology
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-920/p1-bejleri.pdf
|volume=Vol-920
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/bci/BejleriTBFB12
}}
==The Evaluation of Performance in Flow Label and Non Flow Label Approach Based on IPv6 Technology==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-920/p1-bejleri.pdf
The Evaluation of Performance in Flow Label and
Non Flow Label Approach Based on IPv6 Technology
Ariana Bejleri Igli Tafaj Ermal Beqiri
Polytechnic University of Tirana Polytechnic University of Tirana Tirana University
Faculty of Information Technology Faculty of Information Technology Mathematics & Statistics & Applied
Computer Engineering Department Computer Engineering Department Informatics Department
Tirana, Albania Tirana, Albania Tirana, Albania
arianabejleri@yahoo.com itafaj@gmail.com ermalfr@yahoo.fr
Julian Fejzaj Aleksander Biberaj
Tirana University Polytechnic University of Tirana
Faculty of Natural Sciences Faculty of Information Technology
Department of Computer Science Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering
Tirana, Albania Department
Julian.fejzaj@fshn.edu.al Tirana, Albania
a.biberaj@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT For example, a broadcaster can tend to utilize the full bandwidth
In this paper, we want to evaluate the performance of two from the network manager, but meanwhile the network manager
broadcasters with Flow label and Non flow label approach. asks fairness in distributing packets to the remaining broadcasters
Experimentally we have presented that the throughput utilization [5], [6]. As it know throughput is one of the important feature of
for each broadcaster with Flow Label approach which is QoS Routing, because the management of throughput offers a
implemented in MPLS Routing Technology is 89,95%. This result better QoS performance. It is interesting to mention that IPv6 not
is better than Non Flow Label approach which is evaluated at only overcomes the shortcoming problems in the IPv4, but also it
92,77%. The aim of this paper is to present that MPLS Routers takes the benefits in Quality of service (QoS). QoS in IPv6 plays
performance is better than IP routers especially in Throughput an important role in the Stream Model Approach between
Utilization, Low Level of Drop Packet Rate and time delay. The broadcasters [1], [4]. In [3] the packet’s traffic on channel is
second technology is implemented in IP routing. Experimentally organized without flow label technology. Flow label technology
we have generated some video stream packets between 2 means that instead of router nodes (fig 1) based on IP routing we
broadcasters with an arrange of router nodes. Experiments are can use MPLS routers. MPLS technology has some advantages,
performed by using ns-2 simulator. but the most one is speed routing. Based on some executed tests
we can present that bandwidth utilization is another good feature
Keywords compared with IP routers technology.
MPLS technology, IP routing technology, throughput, flow-label The objective of this paper is to highlight our simulation results
approach, ns-2 simulator in terms of two attributes which are the Throughput and Time
Computation Performance based on IPv6 technology with flow
1. INTRODUCTION label packets technology in Multi-channel Stream Approach.
As we know IPv6 is a recent technology of communication and it Than we want to compare the results of our simulation with non-
gives a lot of improvements compared to IPv4 [5], [2], [3]. These flow label packets technology in Multi-channel Stream Approach.
improvements based on features upgraded by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), for example, the increase of the The rest of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 briefly
address space from 32 bits to 128 bits or the increase of some discusses the comparison between MPLS and IP routing section 3
significant QoS conditions. By using the recent multimedia presents the experimental analysis and results, in section 4 are
applications technologies [7], internet providers, companies, given some conclusions and future works and finally are
subscribers and the researchers will take some benefits. The presented the references.
Internet Protocol (IP) is considered to be a best effort service, so
in the future, the TV broadcasters will use the IP address for
communication. In other words, there will be a convergence of the 2. COMPARISON BETWEEN MPLS
broadcast network with the IP to form the Internet Protocol ROUTING AND IP ROUTING
Television (multimedia with IP) under the recent development.
There are built some policies based on flow-labels to manage the 1. IP routing uses hop-by-hop destination-only forwarding
routing of the packets (channels) to the nodes (subscribers)during paradigm. When forwarding IP packets, each router in the
the transmission with IP-multimedia approach. path has to look up the packet's destination IP address in the
IP routing table and forward the packet to the next-hop
router [8].
BCI’12, September 16–20, 2012, Novi Sad, Serbia.
Copyright © 2012 by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted only for private and 2. MPLS uses a variety of protocols to establish Label Switched
academic purposes. This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors. Paths (LSP) across the network. LSPs are almost like Frame
Local Proceedings also appeared in ISBN 978-86-7031-200-5, Faculty of Sciences, Relay or Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) permanent
University of Novi Sad.
1
virtual circuit (PVC), with two major differences: they are As it look from figure 1 two broadcaster generate video-stream
unidirectional and they can merge (all LSPs toward the same packets at the same time. All these packets are routing on these
egress router could merge somewhere in the network). nodes based on RIP v2 policy.
3. MPLS is faster than IP routing because it is based on label. In [3] the throughput for a determined broadcaster and the number
4. MPLS is in 2,5 OSI Layer and IP is in 2 OSI Layer. of nodes is calculated as in the following equation:
3. EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS DESIGN Num ( SBW ) − Num ( RBW )
Throughput = × 100 % (1)
AND RESULTS Num ( SBW )
In this section, we want to test the Throughput and Time Delay
based on IPv6 technology with non flow label packets technology Throughput: The amount of the non-lost received bandwidth.
and flow label packets technology in Multi-channel Stream Num. (SBW): The amount of the bandwidth provided by the
Approach. As we presented above we have used IPv6 technology network manager. Packets should be sent to all nodes of the
because it offers more flexibility and QoS features than IPv4 determined broadcaster.
Num. (RBW): The amount of the bandwidth that is received from
3.1 Experimental Analysis the determined broadcaster. This amount should get different
In the Multi - Stream Approach we have tested up to 10 nodes for value than SBW, because some packets have to lost during
2 broadcasters as end-users. We have used ns2 simulator since it routing.
is considered to be powerful, efficient and flexible for simulation.
The 10 nodes were tested sequentially starting from 1 node, 2 3.2 Simulation Results
nodes, 3 nodes, … , 10 nodes, respectively. We have simulated for
both broadcasters Video Stream Packets with 1.4 KB packet In order to evaluate our method, the main attribute is the
length, Rate Video Stream is 1.5 MB/sec and Bandwidth is 5 MB. Throughput between the nodes and their broadcasters. We did
Network topology is BUS. In NS2 simulator we configure RIP compare the throughput behavior of each broadcaster with their
version 2 Routing Policy. We have choosen approximately nodes starting from 1 node and increasing the size to 10 nodes,
characteristics with real environment [3]. based on IP routing protocol. The experiment presents that the
The maximum Video Packet supported by Maximum total throughput for the 2 broadcasters with 10 nodes with IP
Transmission Units (MTUs), which include the Maximum routing technology is 92.77% . If we use the Non-Flow Label
Segment Size (MSS) plus the 40-byte header, within TCP/IP Technique which means that we can replace the IP routers with
traffic. We'd like video packets (which include a smaller header, MPLS routers, with the same policy routing (RIP) with 2
apparently) to be around 1400 bytes to fit within acceptable limits broadcasters which generate the same packet traffic, the total
and eliminate the possibility of broken packets. throughput utilization for each broadcaster is decrease to 89,95%.
Initially, the first broadcaster generate video stream packets to This means that one broadcaster can use the same number of
second one by httperf tool. In the first broadcaster we have video stream packet generated with smaller utilization bandwidth.
installed client machine and in the second one we have installed All router nodes in figure 1 are configured with IPv6 address. The
server machine. In server machine we have built Apache Web total number of packets generated from each broadcaster is 1000.
Server. So the client is sending video packet request by using http As it looks from table 1 and table 2, if the number of nodes is
protocol to the server machine. On the other hand second increased the total throughput utilization for each broadcaster is
broadcaster can generate http video request to the first one. At this decreased linearly. The number of dropped packets increased
moment client machine is transform in server machine and vice linearly if the number of nodes increased too (table 3,4). Each
versa. Thus at the same time one machine will utilized as client node can introduce drop packets (the reason are buffer,
and server by installed Apache Web Server (Apache2 on architecture of routers etc). In this paper we compared the
CENTOS 5.5 OS) percentage of dropped packets and time delay between 2
For every experimental phase (by 2, 3 ,4 …10 nodes), we have technologies, non-flow labels packet and flow labels packet as it
calculated the throughput , then we have compared the throughput shows in table 3-6.
of the nodes into both broadcasters. Previously we have
performed experiments with router nodes which are based on IP
technology (non flow label technique). We have repeated this
experiment with MPLS routers (flow label technique).
Node 2
Node 1 Node 4
Node 3
Figure 1: Two broadcasters and 4 nodes. The broadcasters
generate video packet traffic between nodes.
2
Table 1: The throughput results for each broadcaster and a Table 4: The percentage of dropped packets between 2
defined number of nodes without flow labels technology (IP) broadcasters and nodes with flow label packet (MPLS)
Nr of Nodes Throughput Nr of Nodes Drop Packets
1 94.401% 1 1.024 %
2 94.227% 2 1.140 %
3 94.055% 3 1.271 %
4 93.901% 4 1.441 %
5 93.607% 5 1.652 %
6 93.414% 6 1.875 %
7 93.243% 7 2.067 %
8 93.134% 8 2.260 %
9 92.998% 9 2.480 %
10 92.777% 10 2.630 %
Table 2: The throughput results between 2 broadcasters and Table 5: Time delay in Multi-Stream Approach with non-flow
number of nodes with flow labels technology (MPLS) label packet (IP)
Nr of Nodes Throughput Nr of Nodes Time delay
1 91.015 % 1 2,16 ms
2 91.012 % 2 3,44 ms
3 91.007 % 3 5,99 ms
4 91.004 % 4 8,32 ms
5 90.452 % 5 9,99 ms
6 89.970 % 6 11,39 ms
7 89.967 % 7 14,22 ms
8 89.961 % 8 17,86 ms
9 89.960 % 9 21,62 ms
10 89.957 % 10 26,55 ms
Table 6: Time delay in Multi-Stream Approach with -flow
Table 3: The percentage of dropped packets between 2 label packet (MPLS)
broadcasters and nodes with non-flow label packet (IP)
Nr of Nodes Drop Packets Nr of Nodes Time delay
1 1.025 % 1 1,66 ms
2 1.142 % 2 2,56 ms
3 1.272 % 3 3,77 ms
4 1.444 % 4 6,20 ms
5 1.652 % 5 8,52 ms
6 1.876 % 6 9,98 ms
7 2.067 % 7 11,04 ms
8 2.261 % 8 12,56 ms
9 2.480 % 9 14,24 ms
10 2.631 % 10 14,89 ms
3
We have presented graphically, throughput utilization and time In the future we will increase the number of broadcasters and
delay (figure 2 and figure 3) based on the flow-label technology. routers. Also we will generate the dynamic length of video
In figure 3 time delay increases linearly when the number of stream packets in order to evaluate the throughput utilization
nodes increased too, because each router nodes introduce a slight performance and time delay in WAN.
delay. In figure 2 throughput utilization is decreased when the
numbers of nodes is increased. As we mentioned above the reason
is increasing of data rate lost for each node. We have a sensitive 5. REFERENCES
reduction of throughput utilization, between node 4 and node 6.
This was happen because in those nodes the ratio of drop packets
[1] Almadi M.A, Idrus R, Ramadass S, Budiarto R, “A Proposed
is bigger than 3 nodes. After 6 nodes the drops of packet are
Model for Policy-Based Routing Rules in the IPv6 Offering
stabilized.
QoS for IPTV Broadcasting,” International Journal of
Computer Science and Network Security, IJCSNS, VOL.8
No.3, March 2004, pp. 163-173, 2008.
[2] Cho K, Luckie M, Huffaker B, “Identifying IPv6 Network
Problems in the Dual-Stack World” In Proceedings of the
Annual Conference of the Special Interest Group on Data
Communication, SIGCOMM’04, Portland, Oregon, USA, 30
August- 3 September 2004.
[3] Liang, J, Yu B, Yang Z, Nahrstedt K.. “A Framework for
Future Internet-Based TV Broadcasting,” In Proceedings of
the International World Wide Web Conference, multimedia
with IP Workshop, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom,
2006
[4] Pezaros DP and. Hutchison D. “Quality of Service
Assurance for the next Generation Internet,” In Proceedings
Figure 2: Throughput results between 2 broadcasters. of the 2nd Postgraduate Symposium in Networking,
Telecommunications and Broadcasting (PGNet'01),
Liverpool, UK, June 18-19, 2001.
[5] Pezaros D.P, Hutchison D, Gardner R.D, Garcia F.J and
Sventek J.S, “Inline Measurements: A Native Measurement
Technique for IPv6 Networks,” In Proceedings of the
International Conference of the IEEE for Networking and
Communication, pp. 105-110, 2004.
[6] Silva J. S, Duarte S, Veiga N, and Boavida F,”MEDIA – An
approach to an efficient integration of IPv6 and ATM
multicast environments,” [Online]. Available:
http://cisuc.dei.uc.pt/dlfile.php?fn=171_pub_SaSilva.pdf&ge
t=1&idp=171&ext= April 12, 2008.
[7] Zhiwei Y, Guizhong L, Rui S, Qing Zh, Xiaoming Ch,
Lishui Ch. ”School of Electronics and Information
Engineering Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China
710049, “A Simulation Mechanism for Video Delivery
Figure 3: Time delay between 2 broadcasters. Researches, 2009
[8] http://searchtelecom.techtarget.com/answer/What-is-the-
difference-between-MPLS-and-normal-IP
4. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
1. As it look from table 3 and table 4 the drop packets rate are
similarity for both methods (flow label and non-flow label).
This is because both routers have the same buffers, so it
doesn’t affect the performance of drop packets routing.
2. If we compare table 5 and table 6 the difference of time is
visible. This is because MPLS routers characterized from a
fast routing technology. The reason is routing packet which
are based on labels, not in IP. This is an important feature of
the best throughput utilization in flow label technology,
descripted in table 2 compared with non-flow label
technology in table 1.
4