Advertisement

An approach to support traffic engineering in IPv6 networks based on IPv6 facilities

  • Line Y. Becerra SánchezEmail author
  • Jhon J. Padilla Aguilar
Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

IPv6 is an Internet protocol with the ability to provide a large number of addresses to allow the connectivity of each existing thing to the global network. It also allows the deployment of many technologies and services of the next generation. One of the major changes that occurred in the IP header with this new version is the addition of the IPv6 flow label field, which was created with the intention of labeling packets that belong to a particular flow to provide an appropriate treatment by routers. However, this field has not been widely exploited yet, and it is being set to zero in almost all IPv6 packets. The main Internet routing problem is that said routing is based on the shortest path algorithm, which leads to the possibility of some paths being congested while others are underused. To solve the congestion problem, many solutions aiming at traffic engineering support have been proposed, but this topic remains an open issue. This paper describes a new solution to support traffic engineering based on the usage of the IPv6 flow label for providing fast packet switching, which we have called PSA-TE6. In this document, we present the PSA-TE6 operation and evaluation regarding the label space reduction, label stacking cost and its minimization. The results show that PSA-TE6 is cheaper compared to the IP/MPLS solution when there is no label stacking, and that PSA-TE6 also outperforms IP/MPLS when the stacking is enabled until achieving a 40% presence of tunnels for encapsulation levels greater than 1.

Keywords

IPv6 Packet switching IPv6 flow label Traffic engineering 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Postel, J. (1981). Internet protocol. IETF RFC791.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deering, S., & Hinden, R. (1998). Internet protocol, version 6 (IPv6) specification. IETF RFC2460.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deering, S., & Hinden, R. (2017). Internet protocol, version 6 (IPv6) specification. IETF RFC8200.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dhamdhere, A., Luckie, M., & Huffaker, B. (2012). Measuring the deployment of IPv6: Topology, routing, and performance. In Proceedings of the ACM internet measurement conference (pp. 537–550).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czyz, J., Allman, M., Zhang, J., Iekel-Johnson, S., Osterweil, E., & Bailey, M. (2014). Measuring IPv6 adoption. In Proceedings of 2014 ACM conference on SIGCOMM (Vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 87–98).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nikkhah, M., & Guérin, R. (2016). Migrating the internet to IPv6: An exploration of the when and why. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 24(4), 2291–2304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu, Q., & Carpenter, B. (2011). Survey of proposed use cases for the IPv6 flow label. IETF RFC6294.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Becerra, L. Y., & Padilla, J. J. (2014). Review of approaches for the use of the flow label of IPv6 header. IEEE Transactions Latin America, 12(8), 1602–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., & Callon, R. (2001). Multiprotocol label switching architecture. IETF RFC3031.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hinden, R. (1994). Simple internet protocol plus white paper. IETF RFC1710.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deering, S., & Hinden, R. (1995). Internet protocol, version 6 (IPv6) specification. IETF RFC1883.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Metzler, J., & Hauth, S. (2000). An end-to-end usage of the IPv6 flow label. Work Prog.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conta, A., & Carpenter, B. (2001). A proposal for the IPv6 flow label specification. IETF internet-draft.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Conta, A., & Rajahalme, J. (2001). A model for Diffserv use of the IPv6 flow label specification. Work Prog.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hagino, J. (2001). Socket API for IPv6 flow label field. IETF internet-draft.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rajahalme, J., Conta, A., Carpenter, B., & Deering, S. (2004). IPv6 flow label specification. IETF RFC3697.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amante, S., Carpenter, B., & Jiang, S. (2011). Rationale for update to the IPv6 flow label specification. IETF RFC6436.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., & Rajahalme, J. (2011). Ipv6 flow label specification. IETF RFC6437.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chakravorty, S. (2008). Challenges of IPv6 flow label implementation. In Proceedings of IEEE MILCOM2008.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chakravorty, S., Bush, J., & Bound, J. (2008). IPv6 label switching architecture. Work Prog.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beckman, M. (2007). IPv6 dynamic flow label switching (FLS). IETF internet-draft.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nichols, K., Blake, B., Baker, F., & Black, D. (1998). Definition of the differentiated services field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 headers. IETF RFC2474.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts, L.,& Harford, J. (2005). In-band QoS signaling for IPv6. Work Prog.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chin-Ling, C. (2011). A study of IPv6 labeling forwarding model supporting Diffserv. Procedia Engineer Science Elsevier, 15, 5590–5594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Banerjee, R., Malhotra, S. P., & Mahaveer, M. (2002). A modified specification for use of the IPv6 flow label for providing an efficient quality of service using a hybrid approach. Work Prog.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin, C., Tseng, P., & Hwang, W. (2006). End-to-end QoS provisioning by flow label in IPv6. In ICIS.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee, I., & Kim, S. (2004). A QoS improvement scheme for real-time traffic using IPv6 flow labels. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3043).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prakash, B. (2004). Using the 20 bit flow label field in the IPv6 header to indicate desirable quality of service on the internet. University of Colorado (MSc Thesis).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aazam, M., Syed, A. M., & Huh, E.-N. (2013). Redefining flow label in IPv6 and MPLS headers for end to end QoS in virtual networking for thin client no title. In 19th Asia-Pacific conference on communications. (APCC), BaliIndones (pp. 585–590).  https://doi.org/10.1109/apcc.2013.6766016.
  30. 30.
    Hassan, R., & Jabbar, R. (2017). End-to-end (e2e) quality of service (QoS) for IPv6 video streaming. In IEEE 19th international conference on advanced communication technology (ICACT). Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Glennan, T., Leckie, C., & Erfani, S. M. (2016). Improved classification of known and unknown network traffic flows using semi-supervised machine learning. In Australasian conference on information security and privacy (pp. 493–501). Springer.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yin, A., & Zhang, S. (2015). Design and implementation of trusted routing strategy based on IPv6 flow identification. In 10th international conference on communications and networking in China (ChinaCom) (pp. 887–892).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Padilla, J., & Paradells, J. (2007). Intserv6: An approach to support QoS over IPv6 wired and wireless networks. European Transactions on Telecommunications, 19(6), 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Padilla, J. J., Paradells, J., & Rodriguez, A. (2006). Supporting QoS over IPv6 wireless networks with IntServ6. In IEEE 17th international symposium on personal, indoor and mobile radio communications (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doan, H., et al. (2006). Flow-based forwarding scheme and performance analysis in mobile IPv6 networks. In International conference of advanced communications technology (Vol. 3, pp. 1490–1496).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zheng, T., Wang, L., & Gu, D. (2012). A flow label based QoS scheme for end-to-end mobile services. In ICNS 2012-Ehte eighth international conference on networking and services (pp. 169–174).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ouellette, S., & Pierre, S. (2006). HPMRSVP-TE: A hierarchical proxy mobile resource reservation protocol for traffic engineering. In IEEE 64th vehicular technology conference 2006 (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yee,T. W., Eng, T. Ch., & Ping, L. S. (2012). Towards utilizing flow label IPv6 in implicit source routing for dynamic source routing (DSR) in wireless ad hoc network. In IEEE Symposium on computers and informatics (pp. 101–106).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Donley, C., & Erichsen, K. (2011). Using the flow label with dual-stack lite. Work Prog.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Carpenter, B., & Amante, S. (2011). Using the IPv6 flow label for equal cost multipath routing and link aggregation in tunnels. IETF RFC6438.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hartmond, F., Rouhi, M., &Scholz, D. (2017). Detecting load balancers in the Internet. In Proceedings of the seminars future internet (FI) and innovative internet technologies and mobile communication (IITM) focal topic: Advanced persistent threats. Munich, Germany (pp. 17–23).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Braden, R., Clark, D., & Shenke, S. (1994). Integrated services in the internet architecture: An overview. IETF RFC1633.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Melnikov, D. A., Lavrukhin, Y. N., Durakovsky, A. P., Gorbatov, V. S., & Petrov, V. R. (2015). Access control mechanism based on entity authentication with IPv6 header ‘flow label’ field. In 3rd international conference on future internet of things and cloud (pp. 158–164).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Blake, S. (2009). Use of the IPv6 flow label as a transport-layer nonce to defend against off-path spoofing attacks. Work Prog.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hendriks, L., Velan, P., Schmidt, R. de O., de Boer, P. T., & Pras, A. (2017). Flow-based detection of ipv6-specific network layer attacks. In IFIP international conference on autonomous infrastructure, management and security. AIMS 2017: Security of networks and services in an all-connected world (pp. 137–142).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bobade, S., & Goudar, R. (2015). Secure data communication using protocol steganography in IPv6. In International conference on computing communication control and automation (pp. 275–279).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Awduche, D., et al. (2002). Overview and principles of internet traffic engineering. IETF RFC3272.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Becerra, L. Y., & Padilla, J. J. (2012). Study of proposals for supporting internet traffic engineering. Entre Ciencia e Ingeniería, 6(11), 53–76.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fortz, B., & Thorup, M. (2000). Internet traffic engineering by optimizing OSPF weights. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM (pp. 519–528).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fortz, B., Rexford, J., & Thorup, M. (2002). Traffic engineering with traditional IP routing protocols. IEEE Communications Magazine, 40(10), 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Thorup, M., & Fortz, B. (2002). Optimizing OSPF/IS-IS weights in a changing world. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 20(4), 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ericsson, M., Resende, M., & Pardalos, P. (2002). A genetic algorithm for the weight setting problem in OSPF routing. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 6(3), 299–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gojmerac, I., Ziegler, T., Ricciato, F., & Reichl, P. (2003). Adaptive multipath routing for dynamic traffic engineering. In Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM (pp. 3058–3062).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang, J., et al. (2005). Edge based traffic engineering for OSPF networks. Computer Networks, 48(4), 605–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Abrahamsson, H., & Bjorkman, M. (2009). Robust traffic engineering using L-balanced weight-settings in OSPF/IS-IS. In Broadband communications, networks, and systems BROADNETS. Sixth international conference (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Xu, K., Liu, H., Liu, J., & Shen, M. (2011). One more wight is enough: Toward the optimal traffic engineering with OSPF. In IEEE Computer Society 31st international conference on distributed computing systems (pp. 836–846).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Xu, K., Shen, M., Liu, H., Liu, J., Li, F., & Li, T. (2016). Achieving optimal traffic engineering using a generalized routing framework. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 27(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Awduch, D., et al. (1999). Requirements for traffic engineering over MPLS. IETF RFC2702.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Awduche, D. (1999). MPLS and traffic engineering in IP networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 37(12), 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Karaman, A. (2006). Constraint-based routing in traffic engineering. In Computer networks (pp. 49–54).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nayak, P., & Murty, G. R. (2013). Survey on constrained based path selection QoS routing algortihms: MCP and MCOP Problems. Journal of Information Systems and Communication, 4(1), 6.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., & Lewis, D. (2013). The locator/ID separation protocol (LISP). IETF RFC6830.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., & Lahiri, P. (2016). LISP traffic engineering use-cases. draft-farinacci-lisp-te-11.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Saucez, D., Donnet, B., Iannone, L., & Bonaventure, O. (2008). Interdomain traffic engineering in a locator/identifier separation Context. In IEEE internet network management workshop. Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Li, K., Wang, S., & Wang, X. (2011). Edge router selection and traffic engineering in LISP-capable networks. IEEE Journal of Communications and Networks, 13(6), 612–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Li, K., Wang, S., Xu, S., & Wang. (2011). ERMAO: An enhanced intradomain traffic engineering approach in LISP-capable Networks. In IEEE Global Telecommunications ConferenceGLOBECOM.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Herrmann, D., Turba, M., Kuijper, A., & Schweizer, I. (2014). Inbound interdomain traffic engineering with LISP. In 39th annual IEEE conference on local computer networks (pp. 458–461).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jeong, T., Liy, J., Hyun, J., Yoo, J.-H., & Hong, J. W.-K. (2015). Experience on the development of LISP-enabled services: An ISP perspective. In Proceedings of the 2015 1st IEEE conference on network softwarization (pp. 1–9).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nguyen, H. D. D., & Secci, S. (2016). LISP-EC: Enhancing LISP with egress control. In IEEE conference on standards for communications and networking.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S. & Shakir, R. (2017). Segment routing architecture. draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Filsfils, C., et al. (2017). Segment routing policy for traffic engineering. raft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-00.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bhatia, R., Hao, F., Kodialam, M., & Lakshman, T. V. (2015). Optimized network traffic engineering using segment routing. In IEEE conference on computer communications.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rabah, G., Olivier, D., Samer, L., & Texier, G. (2016). Label encoding algorithm for MPLS segment routing. In IEEE international symposium on network computing and application (pp. 113–117).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Salsano, S., Siracusano, G., Luca, V., Luca, D. and Pier, L. (2016). PSMR-poor man’s segment routing, a minimalistic approach to segment routing and a traffic engineering use case. In Network operations and management Symposium (pp. 598–604).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Moreno, E., Beghelli, A., & Cugini, F. (2017). Traffic engineering in segment routing networks. Computer Networks, 114, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Balbinot, L., de Andrade, M., Tarouco, L., & Roesler, V. (2002). IP next generation label switching. In IEEE Workshop on IP operations and management (pp. 21–25).Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., & Lindem, A. (2008). Traffic engineering extensions to OSPF version 3. IETF RFC5329.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Awduche, D. et al., (2001). RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP tunnels. IETF RFC3209.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Younis, O., & Fahmy, S. (2003). Constraint-based routing in the internet: Basic principles and recent research. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 5(1), 2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Becerra, L. Y., Padilla, J. J., & Bañol, J. L. (2017). A survey on constraints-based routing algorithms: objectives traffic engineering and quality of service. Revista Entre Ciencia e Ingeniería, 21, 112–122.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Medhi, D., & Ramasay, K. (2007). Network routing-algorithms, protocols and architectures (pp. 166–191). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Davie, B. S., & Farrel, A. (2008). MPLS: Next steps. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Conta, A., & Deering, S. (1998). Generic packet tunneling in IPv6 specification. IETF RFC2473.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mathworks. (1994). Retrieved June 8, 2016 from https://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html.
  85. 85.
    Cerrutti, I., & Castoldi, P. (2006). Influence of label stack depth on the performance of MPLS networks. In IEEE Globecom (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Vanaubel, Y., Mérindol, P., Pansiot, J.-J., & Donnet, B. (2016). A brief history of MPLS usage in IPv6. In International conference on passive and active measurement link (pp. 359–370).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    AMPL Optimization Inc. (2013). AMPL. Retrieved May 15, 2016 from http://ampl.com.
  88. 88.
    CPLEX for AMPL. (2013). Retrieved May 20, 2016 from https://ampl.com/products/solvers/solvers-we-sell/cplex/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Católica de PereiraPereiraColombia
  2. 2.Universidad Pontificia BolivarianaBucaramangaColombia

Personalised recommendations