1. INTRODUCTION:

In the new era, there has been an explosive growth in the area of communication and network technologies [1-3]. So that the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a routing technique which is mainly used to directly sends the data from one node to another node through the shortest path labels thus it avoids the complex path lookups in a speeding traffic flow and routing table [2-11]. MPLS established on IEEE 802.15.01 standard which has designed visualize to the data link layer and network layer [13]. MPLS technology is proposed by the Internet Engineering Task Force which are to be operates between the two layers that is the Data Link Layer (Layer 2) and Network layer (Layer 3) protocols whereas the MPLS support a range of access technologies including the ATM, Frame Relay, DSL [4].

MPLS provides the labelling technique for easily understand the storage ability and path between the nodes from end to end points and encapsulate the packets of the various protocols. You can use the RFC 3032 which is mainly used for the label stack encoding [6-8,12].

The structure of the paper is as follows. After the introduction which constitutes section 1, section 2 presents related work; section 3 covers methodology of the proposed model;

section 4 has working criteria. Section 5 covers experimental results, and, analysis of the results; and, section 6 summarizes the conclusion and section 7 described the future work whereas section 8 presents the Refrences.

Fig 1. Packets Routing Technique in MPLS [5,22]

1.2 Labels of MPLS

Fig 2. Labels of MPLS [10,12]

1.2.1 Label value:

The name says it all, this is where you will find the value of the label.

1.2.2 Experimental:

These are the three experimental bits. These are used for QoS, normally the IP precedence value of the IP packet will be copied here.

1.2.3 Stack:

This is the “bottom of stack” bit. With MPLS it’s possible to add more than one label, you’ll see why in some of the MPLS VPN lessons. When this bit is set to one, it’s the last MPLS header. When it’s set to zero then there is one or more MPLS headers left.

1.2.4 TTL:

TTL means time to live which just like in the IP header, this is the time to live field. You can use this for traces in the MPLS network. Each hop decrements the TTL by one [19-20].

Fig 3. Configuration of MPLS [21]

2. Related Work:

A significant number of objective metrics, based on the citation count, have been developed in MPLS. Z. Al-Qudaha et al. defined that the Internet paths are generally stable with routes between two end-points lasting for several hours or even days [1]. By the google site MPLS is a routing technique which is mainly used to directly snds the data from one node to another node[2,11]. M. N. Algabri et al. describes the details of the comprehensive and effective simulation study of the MPLS technology focused on a specific aspect of the different topologies [3]. G. Kaur and D. Kumar presents the key elementof the MPLS which is the ability to encapsulate MPLS packets in IP tunnels [4]. By the some authors MPLS is mainly used to routing the packets through the IP addresses which is used the RFC 3031 and RFC 3468 for MPLS Architecture[5-8]. Mazhina, Mohammadib, Ghasemic and Feizid, describes the information about the MPLS architcture which is mainly divided into two types that is virtual and physical [9-10]. The label field gives information needed to forward the packet and is the basis upon which MPLS switching operations occur[12,20-21]. By other authors In the Mesh Topology nodes are directly connected between each node whereas In the Ring topology the data send from one to another node in the form of Ring[13-16]. Tutorialpoint describes the Data communication refers to the digital Transmission and VOIP refers to the bytes of data[17-18]. Rathi et al. integrates the performance and traffic management of MPLS capabilities of Data Link Layer 2 with the scalability and flexibility of Network Layer 3 routing [19].

3.MPLS Methodology:

In this section, we identify and discuss factors that affect a research paper’s impact. We then use this discussion to develop a Mesh and Ring Topology for developing the paths that helps in determining the research paper’s impact in an objective manner. The definition of the common terms used in the paper is given below.

3.1 Simulation Scenarios topologies:

3.1.1 Mesh topology:

In the mesh topology the nodes are directly connected between each node. It has multiple links, so if one node is failed then the data communication by the other nodes so that it is more reliable than the other topologies [14-16].

Fig 4. Configuration of Mesh Topology [9,13]

3.1.2 Ring topology:

In the ring topology, every device has two neighbours so that the data travel through one node to another node in form of ring. In this case, if any cable breaks and any failure occur in the network, it effects to the entire network [14-16].

Fig 5. Configuration of Ring Topology [15]

3.2 Traffic Sources:

3.2.1 Data:

Data communications refers to the transmission of this digital data between two or more nodes and a computer network or data network is a telecommunications network that allows computers to exchange data. The physical connection between networked computing devices is established using either cable media or wireless media. The best-known computer network is the Internet.[17].

3.2.2 Voice:

VoIP MPLS involves encapsulating the coded voice bytes into the Real Time Transport Protocol (RTP) packets and transmitting over the UDP/IP/MPLS protocol stack. The combined count of header bytes for RTP, UDP, and IP is 40 bytes [18].

4. Working Criteria:

Netsim is a tool used in network simulation and emulating it by design and planning Networking of MPLS. MPLS support various technologies such as T1/E1, ATM, Frame Relay and DSL are covered in Netsim. This simulator is developed by tetcos and used in windows operating system and moreover written in c. NETSIM has an open, modular and flexible architecture. In the working criteria, competitive study of Mesh and Ring Topology which gives the simulation results of the Parameters.

Fig 6. Flowchart of comparison between Ring and Mesh Topology

5. Simulation Results:

Table 1. Observations of Performance Metrics

	Mesh Topology		Ring Topology
Traffic type	Data	Voice	Data	Voice
Utilization (%)	65.14	98.94	48.69	99.47
Effective Utilization (%)	62.95	88.15	47.09	83.6
Overhead (%)	12.8	15.59	9.6	15.67
Loss (%)	0.90	0.20	0.62	0.20
Unutilization (%)	34.85	1.05	51.3	0.52
Transmission Delay (Ms.)	125.43	23.74	94.32	23.74
Prioritypackets Queuing Time (Ms.)	15063.4	7896.77	11356.21	7896.77
Packets Errored	149	137	75	65
Delay (Ms.)	15188.83	7920.51	11450.54	7920.51
Queuing Delay (Ms.)	15063.39	7896.76	11356.2	7896.76

The result analysis section delineates the simulation studies to capture the network map out that studies is performed by exploiting the Netsim 9.0 simulator. The results demonstrate the simulation running time of voice and data is 100 seconds when using different parameters that is mesh and ring topologies. These are discussed as below: -

5.1 Packet Loss:

This graph illustrates that the packet probability of data in Mesh and Ring topology is more than the voice, traffic type whereas the voice values remain constant in both topologies Fig. 7.

Fig 7. Packet Loss

5.2 Packet Errored:

This result shows that the variation between the results of the mesh and ring topology in case of data and voice over the low priority whereas packet errored is improved in the ring topology Fig. 8.

Fig 8. Packet Errored

5.3 Delay and Queuing Delay:

This statistic gives the average packet delay variation for traffic through the Mesh and Ring Topology which delay and Queuing delay variation is measured as the time elapsed during the transmission of packets from the source to destination in the network. We note that, in the voice traffic type the delay is 7920.51 Ms in mesh topology while it is 7920.51 Ms in ring topology. The delay of the data traffic type is 15188.83 Ms in Mesh Topology whereas it is 11450.54ms in the Ring Topology. Hence, the results map out that the voice traffic type has performed lesser delay variation in both topologies as compared to data traffic type. On the other hand, the Queuing delay is performed variation same as the delay parameter.

Fig 9. Delay and Queuing Delay

5.4 Priority Packet Queuing Time:

The below figure shows that results between two topologies that is Mesh and Ring topology whereas In the first scenario, the data is touched to a peakiest point i.e. 15063.4ms but the drastically decreases are occurred in the voice. Furthermore, In the second scenario, the data is reached at 11356.21 Ms and voice priority packet is consumed the 7896.77 Ms which both are less than as compare to the mesh topology Fig.10.

Fig 10. Priority Packet Queuing Time

5.5 Transmission Delay:

This graph depicts the information about the Transmission Delay between the two topologies whereas the values of voice in both topologies are remain constant at 23.74 but we see the minor decrease in Mesh and Ring topologies data which is 125.43 Ms and 94.32 Ms respectively Fig. 11.

Fig 11. Transmission Delay

5.6 Unutilization:

Unutilization means which space that is not required by any parameter in both topologies. To demonstrate that In the Mesh topology the data traffic type is 34.85% whereas the voice is only 1.05%. Despite of this, In the Ring Topology, the data is 51.3% which is highest but the voice is reached to its lowest point i.e. 0.52% Fig. 12.

Fig 12. Unutilization

5.7 Utilization, Effective Utilization, Overhead:

In the below Bar graph, the flucrations are occurred in different topologies whereas we see that the Utilization and Effective Utilization has some minimum up-downs but the Overhead values touched to its lowest point that ranges from 9.6 % to 15.59 % Fig.13.

Fig 13. Utilization, Effective Utilization, Overhead

6.CONCLUSION:

To conclude that we have conferred a comparative analysis, using the Netsim simulator 9.0, the behaviour of MPLS is a connection base which established the connection between the different routers and customer edge nodes. The comparative analysis has been done in the two scenarios: (1) Examine the efficiencies of a topologies. (2) Analyse the efficiency of the data and voice low priorities. Performance has been measured on the basis of some parameters that aimed to figure out the effects of data and voice on the ring and mesh topologies. The simulation run time was 100 seconds. The result of the experiments was promising. It shows that Mesh Topology is better than Ring Topology in case of data traffic type and in reliability.

7.FUTURE WORK:

In This paper the performance comparison of Mesh topology and Ring Topology network using data and voice for Traffic Engineering is mainly done. The Future work of this paper can be extended to study the performance of Mesh and Ring Topology on different priorities. The work can be further extended to study the performance of different topologies on different priorities on data and voice traffic type.

8. REFERENCES:

1. Z. Al-Qudaha, L. Jomhawya, M. Alsarayreha, M. Rabinovichc, “On the stability and diversity of Internet routes in the MPLS era”, Performance Evaluation 2020.

2. Wikipedia, “Multiprotocol_Label_Switching”, Online Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprotocol_Label_Switching

3. M. N. Algabri, S. A. Alhomdy, G. Alselwi, A. A. Alowiri, N. Sharaby, “Performance Analysis of IPv6 Over MPLS and MPLS-VPN”, International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3 Issue 5, May 2016.

4. G. Kaur, D. Kumar, “MPLS Technology on IP Backbone Network”, International Journal of Computer Applications Vol 5, No.1, August 2010.

5. MPLS Series, “Diagram how packets are routing in network”, Online available at: https://www.google.com/search?q=mpls+network+imagesandrlz=1C1CHBF_enIN884IN884andsxsrf=ALeKk00EUGrAlAX2vDWwE1MPOy-zVgzDzQ:1584603366405andtbm=ischandsource=iuandictx=1andfir=mkbLEg4D8i2seM%253A%252C8qnr5oW2WcjEMM%252C_andvet=1andusg=AI4_-kSgk29A0Cvtwp9UT3jILbi5u_feUwandsa=Xandved=2ahUKEwievI7Gg6boAhUbzjgGHfEtAWkQ9QEwA3oECAoQIQ#imgrc=8vUE92VcP2itNM

6. HTML, “RFC_3031”, Online Available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3031

7. HTML, “RFC_3468”, Online Available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3468

8. HTML, “RFC_3813”, Online Available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3813

9. G. Ahmadeyan Mazhina, M. Bag-Mohammadib, M. Ghasemic, S. Feizid, “Multi-layer Architecture for realization of Network Virtualization using MPLS Technology” ICT Express 2017.

10. A. Chaudhary, S. Prakash Singh, “Performance Evaluation of VoIP in MPLS network”, International Journal of Computers and Technology Vol. 13, no. 9.

11. Wikipedia, “Multiprotocol_Label_Switching”, Online Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprotocol_Label_Switching

12. Network lessons, “MPLS Labels and Devices”, Online Available at: https://networklessons.com/mpls/mpls-labels-and-devices

13. Word press, “Ring_Topology”,Online Available at: https://mplsnet.wordpress.com/tag/ring-topology/

14. Geeks for geeks, “Difference_between_Ring_Topology_and_Mesh_Topology”,https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-ring-topology-and-mesh-topology/

15. HTML, “Network Topology”, Online Available at: https://www.edrawsoft.com/network-topologies.html

16. HTML, “Network_Topology”, Online Available at: https://www.dnsstuff.com/what-is-network-topology

17. Tutorialpoint“Data_communication_computer_Network”,Online.Available.at: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/data_communication_computer_network/index.html

18. Wikipedia, “VOIP”, Online Available at:http://what-when-how.com/voip/voice-transport-mechanisms-over-mpls-voip/

19. A. Rathi, A. Ticku, N. Gupta, “Development Of Test-Bed For Performance Evaluation Of Multiprotocol Label Switching”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT), Vol. 2 Issue 3, March – 2013.

20. Network lessons, “MPLS_Labels_and_devices”,Online Available at:https://networklessons.com/mpls/mpls-labels-and-devices

21. Google, “Diagrams_of_MPLS”, Online Available at:https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enIN884IN884andsxsrf=ALeKk02mObKqOXpgjzvUUHqJgNoad7NkPg:1583404052680andq=diagrams+of+mplsandtbm=ischandsource=univandsa=Xandved=2ahUKEwjU2eHgj4PoAhXSXSsKHUKiCWQQ7Al6BAgLEDIandbiw=1366andbih=625#imgrc=QDjNjsxtQJAASM

22. K. Molnar, J. Hosek, L.Rucka, D.Komosny and M. Vlcek, “Performance Evaluation of Quality of Service Assurance in MPLS Networks”, International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, Vol.9, No.11, November 2009.

Received on 28.03.2020 Accepted on 08.05.2020

Int. J. Tech. 2020; 10(1):13-20.

DOI: 10.5958/2231-3915.2020.00003.6