Queuing Mechanisms to improve QoS for VOIP over IPv4 and MPLS networks

Transcription

1 Queuing Mechanisms to improve QoS for VOIP over IPv4 and MPLS networks Sumera Saleem Mansoor Ahmed Tahir Abstract In this paper, an implementation of different Queuing mechanisms over MPLS network for QoS of VOIP. Voice over Internet Protocol is a technology for delivery of telephone calls and other voice communication over the internet, involving the conversion of analog voice signals to digital form. To improve QoS of VOIP; different queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ) are used over MPLS network. Lan Traffic V2 (software testing tool) used to generate traffic over an MPLS network. The results gathered from the analysis on Wireshark shows that queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ) have a significant impact on QoS of VOIP and the impact varies according to the parameters (delay and packet loss). CBWFQ and LLQ queuing mechanisms are most appropriate to improve QoS of VOIP. Index Terms VOIP; QoS; Codec (G.711); queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ); MPLS network. I. INTRODUCTION Voice over Internet Protocol is a service from the internet services that allows users to communicate with each other. The quality of service (QoS) is very sensitive to delay so that VOIP need it. Implement different queuing algorithms (FIFO, PQ, and WFQ) within router on VOIP and analyzed a best queuing algorithm to improve QoS of VOIP [1] VOIP enables people to use the internet as the transmission medium for telephone calls so VOIP calls will be cheaper. We need to secure data that is delivered on IP network for maintaining QoS of VOIP. Implement different queuing algorithms (FIFO, PQ, and WFQ) within multipath routing architecture on VOIP and analyzed most appropriate queuing algorithm to improve QoS of VOIP [2] Implement different combination of queuing methods (PQ-CBWFQ, WFQ-CBWFQ) within network and analyzed the best combination (WFQ-CBWFQ) to improve QoS of VOIP [3] Analyzed QoS of VOIP on different communication aspects and gather results showed the communication aspects according to parameters on QoS of VOIP communication. QoS of VOIP communication decrease due to network congestion and high packet loss achieved. Delay and jitter increased when VPN implemented on wire and wireless LAN [4] Analyzed performance of Tail drop, RED with a standard parameter setting, RED with an optimized parameter setting based on a model of RED with TCP flow and RED with a smoother drop function called gentle RED on various load situations for FTP-like and web-like flows. Based on results no performance improve RED compare to Tail drop [5] Queuing mechanisms effect on different application utilization like FTP, video, VOIP. Implement queuing mechanisms (FIFO, Priority and WFQ) on different applications and analyzed Priority and WFQ most appropriate queuing mechanisms for video and VOIP applications [6] Different codec performance compared over an IP network based on SIP architecture and analyzed QoS parameters (delay and jitter), MOS (Mean opinion score) and throughput. Based on results choose the best codec for transporting voice over an IP backbone [7] AQM (Active queue management) impact on four schemes (ARED, PI, REM, and AVQ) to improve voice call by different network scenarios, changing network loads and scheme control parameters. MOS (Mean opinion score) used to measure subjective perception of voice communication. Results showed that AQM schemes could offer adequate satisfaction to VOIP users. ARED and AVQ provide a better quality of voice calls [8] Cognitive radio network implement to improve VOIP call quality. VOIP parameters (delay, jitter, and packet loss) analyzed and modified by modified cognitive radio network for achieved high call quality [9] QoS mechanism is used to provide successfully transmitted the packet across IP network and reduce delay or packet drop by assigned priority. VOIP codec and different buffer size used to improve QoS of VOIP. Codec G.729 provide better performance. When buffer size increase so QoS parameters (delay and throughput) also increase [10] QoS of VOIP is poor due to delay. QoS of VOIP analyzed on low-speed links by using different queuing mechanisms and codec. Results show that G at 5.3 kbps provides good QoS of VoIP. Low-speed codec performance well on kbps link for voice traffic [11]. In this paper, Queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ) implement over overlay network in a lab environment from a company and analyzed QoS parameters (delay and packet loss) to improve QoS of VOIP. Different queuing mechanism effect analyzed on QoS of VOIP over Overlay network Different values of parameters achieved and based on this para- meters choose the appropriate queuing mechanism to improve QoS of VOIP. CBWFQ and LLQ are best queuing mechanisms to improve QoS of VOIP because no packet loss and delay achieved. The paper is structured as follows: section ii explains the proposed network after implement queuing mechanisms to improve QoS of VOIP. Section iii shows the results on the graph after implement queuing techniques on IPv4 and Overlay network during VOIP call and the section iv concludes the paper by discussing the simulation results. 1

2 II. QOS OF VOIP FOR IPV4 AND MPLS NETWORKS QoS can be defined as the ability of the network to support good services in order to accept good customers, In other words, QoS measure to the degree of user satisfaction and network performance [1]. VOIP is extremely bandwidth and delay-sensitive. An application like , FTP, and HTTP are not sensitive to delay of transferring information. Therefore QoS of VOIP is having most effective consideration to make sure that the voice packets are not delayed or lost while transferred over the network. According to ITU the different parameters (Delay and packet loss) can be used to measure the QoS of VOIP [2]. These parameters briefly described below. A. Delay As a delay sensitive application, voice cannot tolerate too much delay. A person whose speaking into the phone called the source and the destination is the listener at the order end. Ideally, must keeping on the Delay as low as possible but if there is too much traffic on the line (congestion), or if a voice packet gets stuck behind a bunch of data packets (such as an attachment), the voice packet will be delayed to the point that the quality of the call is compromised [1]. Delay of 150ms is the recommended delay value defined by the G114 recommendation of the Inter- national Telecommunication Union (ITU-T). It also considers a delay of 400ms is the maximum acceptable value [7]. the MPLS domain. The measurement environment consists of routers (Cisco 2801 series routers), switches, Cisco IP Phones, and PCs. Routers are configured on running O/S (PCs). GNS3 use to build network topology and use with real devices (routers, switches, IP phones, and PCs). Lan Traffic V2 (Software testing tool) generate traffic on IPv4 and MPLS networks. Lan Traffic V2 running on O/S (PCs). Lan Traffic V2 shows the data sent, data receive and throughput Wireshark uses to analyze packet loss, delay, jitter, bandwidth, packets send and packet receive during VOIP call. Voice Traffic generated after implementing queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ) on IPv4 and MPLS networks to improve QoS of VOIP call. Different Data Send, Data received and throughput values show on Lan Traffic V2 during VOIP call on IPv4 and MPLS networks. Wireshark uses to show Packet loss, jitter and delay values. B. Jitter Jitter describes the degree of fluctuation in packet access, which can be caused by too much traffic on the line or the end-to-end delay variation between two consecutive packets is called jitter. A jitter of less than 50ms is considered to be acceptable for high-quality VOIP calls [1]. C. Packet loss Packet loss is the term used to describe the packets that Do not arrive at the intended destination that happened when a device (router, switch and link) is overloaded and cannot accept any incoming data a given moment. Packets will be dropped during periods of network congestion. Voice traffic can tolerate less than a 3% loss of packets (1% is optimum) before callers feel at in conversation. Equation (1) shows the calculation of packet loss ratio defined as a ratio of the number of lost packets to the total number of transmitted packets Where N equals the total number of packets transmitted during a specific time period, and NL equals the number of packets lost during the same time period [1]. Loss packets ratio = (NL/N) 100%. (1) III. MEASUREMENT ENVIRONMENT The measurement environment network topology is shown in fig, 1 which was built in the lab. Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) is a multiservice Internet technology based on forwarding the packets using a specific packet label switching technique. The premise of MPLS is to attach a short fixed-length label to the packets at the ingress router of Fig. 1: MPLS network. IV. CONFIGURATIONS OF QUEUING MECHANISM OVER IPV4 AND MPLS NETWORKS Voice Traffic generated after implementing queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ) on IPv4 and MPLS networks to improve QoS of VOIP call. These router configuration settings were used for implementing Queuing mechanism LLQ and CBWFQ over IPv4 and MPLS networks. 2

3 These router configuration settings were used for implementing Queuing mechanism (WFQ and FIFO over IPv4 and MPLS networks. loss to improve QoS of VoIP on IPv4 network. LLQ show a low delay in all queuing mechanisms (CBWFQ, WFQ, and FIFO) so LLQ is an appropriate queuing mechanism in term of delay to improve QoS of VoIP on IPv4 network. LLQ show low jitter while all other queuing mechanisms (CBWFQ, WFQ, and FIFO) shows more jitter so LLQ is an appropriate queuing mechanism in term of jitter to improve QoS of VoIP on IPv4 network. The table shows the simulation results from MPLS network. V. MEASUREMENT RESULTS AND ANALYSIS In this research analyzed an effect of different queuing mechanisms (WFQ, CBWFQ, LLQ, and FIFO) on IPv4 and MPLS networks for QoS of VOIP. Fig.5. shows the connectivity of routers, PCs and IP Phone. Implement queuing mechanism on IPv4 and MPLS networks and analyzed packet send, a packet received delay, packet loss, and jitter during VOIP call. The simulation performs different time duration for each queuing mechanisms (WFQ, CBWFQ, LLQ and FIFO) on IPv4 and MPLS networks and analyzed delay, jitter and packet loss, packet send, a packet received and bandwidth utilization by Wireshark. Lan Traffic v2 use to generate traffic after implement FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ and LLQ on IPv4 and MPLS networks during VOIP call. Table shows the simulation results from IPv4 network Obtained results show zero packet loss for CBWFQ and LLQ while WFQ and FIFO show packet loss so CBWFQ and LLQ are appropriate queuing mechanisms in term of packet Obtained results show zero packet loss for FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ so FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ are not appropriate queuing mechanisms in term of packet loss to improve QoS of VoIP on MPLS network. LLQ show a low delay in all queuing mechanisms (CBWFQ, WFQ, and FIFO) so LLQ is an appropriate queuing mechanism in term of delay to improve QoS of VoIP on MPLS network. LLQ show low 3

4 jitter while all other queuing mechanisms (CBWFQ, WFQ, and FIFO) shows more jitter so LLQ is an appropriate queuing mechanism in term of jitter to improve QoS of VoIP on MPLS network. The Graph shows a total number of packets and time during VOIP Call after implementing queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ) on IPv4 network. A. Voice traffic generated after implement queuing mechanisms on IPV4 and MPLS networks Packet loss Fig. 4: the graph shows packet loss after implementing Queuing mechanisms on IPv4 network Fig. 2: Shows the total number of packets after implementing queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ) on IPv4 network during VOIP call The graph shows packet loss for FIFO and WFQ while shows zero packet loss for CBWFQ, and LLQ on IPv4 network so IPv4 network provides bad QoS of VOIP call. The Graph shows a total number of packets and time during VOIP call on MPLS network. Fig. 5: the graph shows packet loss zero after implementing Queuing mechanisms on MPLS network. Fig. 3: Shows the total number of packets after implementing queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, CBWFQ, and LLQ) on MPLS network during VOIP call on MPLS network The graph shows zero packet loss for FIFO, WFQ CB- WFQ, and LLQ on MPLS network so MPLS network provides good QoS of VOIP call. We analyzed after simulation on IPv4 and MPLS networks that CBWFQ and LLQ are appropriate queuing 4

5 mechanism to improve QoS of VOIP call in accordance with parameter packet loss on IPv4 and MPLS networks while FIFO and WFQ are not appropriate queuing mechanism to improve QoS of VOIP call in accordance with parameter packet loss on IPv4 and MPLS networks Delay Fig. 7: the graph shows delay after implementing queuing mechanisms on MPLS network Fig. 6: the graph shows the Delay after implementing queuing mechanisms on IPv4 network The graph shows more delay on FIFO, WFQ, and CB- WFQ while LLQ shows low delay as compared to all other queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, and CBWFQ) so LLQ is an appropriate queuing mechanism in accordance with parameter delay to improve QoS of VOIP call on IPv4 network. The graph shows more delay on FIFO, WFQ, and LLQ queuing mechanism while show low delay on LLQ queuing mechanism so LLQ queuing mechanism to improve QoS of VOIP call on MPLS network. Jitter The graph shows more jitter on FIFO, WFQ, and CB- WFQ while LLQ shows low jitter as compared to all other queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, and LLQ) so LLQ is an appropriate queuing mechanism in accordance to parameter jitter to improve QoS of VOIP call on IPv4 network. The graph shows more jitter on FIFO, WFQ, and CB- WFQ while LLQ shows low jitter as compare to all other queuing mechanisms (FIFO, WFQ, and LLQ) so LLQ is appropriate queuing mechanism in accordance to parameter jitter to improve QoS of VOIP call on MPLS network Fig. 8: the graph shows the jitter after implementing queuing mechanisms on IPv4 network. 5

6 Fig. 9: the graph shows the jitter after implementing queuing mechanisms on MPLS network VI. CONCLUSION The presented belongs to the performance of different queuing mechanisms over IPv4 and MPLS networks during VOIP call in a lab environment. In all cases, the measurement results show that FIFO is not an appropriate queuing mechanism to improve QoS of VOIP call due to more packet loss, delay, and jitter. WFQ is also not an appropriate queuing mechanism to handling voice packets in congestion. WFQ results in all cases show more packet loss, delay, and jitter. CBWFQ and LLQ are appropriate queuing mechanisms to improve QoS of VOIP in accordance to packet loss but CBWFQ is not an appropriate queuing mechanism to improve QoS of VOIP in accordance to delay and jitter while LLQ is the best queuing mechanism to improve VOIP call in accordance to delay and jitter. LLQ is the best queuing mechanism to improve QoS of VOIP on IPv4 and MPLS networks. MPLS network performance is better than IPv4 network to improve QoS of VOIP. REFERENCES [1] The Affects of Different Queuing Algorithms within the Router on QoS VoIP application Using OPNET.Dr. Hussein A. Mohammed*, Dr. Adnan Hussein Ali**, Hawraa Jassim Mohammed* International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) Vol.5, No.1, January [2] Implementation of Queuing Algorithm in Multipath Dynamic Routing architecture for effective and Secured data transfer in VoIP. Dr. V. Karthikeyani2 Mr. MohamOmar Mr.M. Vijayakumar1med. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT)- Volume 4 Issue 4-April [3] Impact of hybrid queuing disciplines on the VoIP traffic Delay Saa Klampfer, Joe Mohorko, arko uej. Elektrotehniki vestnik 76(3): , 2009 ElectroTechnical Review: Ljubljana, Slovenija [4] VOIP PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT USING QoS PARAME- TERS A.H. Muhamad Amin The Second International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology(IIT05) [5] Comparison of Tail Drop and Active Queue Manage- Ment Performance for Bulk-data and Web-like Internet Traffic Christ of Brandauer, Gianluca Iannaccone, Christophe Diot, Thomas Ziegler. [6] The affects of different queuing disciplines over FTP, Video And VoIP Performance Assoc. Prof. Mitko Gospodinov. International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies- CompSysTech2004 [7] Performance Analysis and Comparative Study of Voice Over IP using Hybrid Codec Younes LABYAD1 MohammedMOUGHIT2 Abdelkrim HAQIQ1, IEEE [8] On the impact of active queue management on VoIP quality of Service Vitalio Alfonso Reguera a,*, Felix F. A lvarez Paliza b,1, Walter Godoy Jr. c,2, Evelio M. Garca Fernandez d,3 [9] Analysis and Enhancement of QoS in Cognitiv Radio Network for Efficient VoIP Performance Tamal Chakraborty1, Atri Mukhopadhyay IEEE [10] Comparisons of QoS in VoIP over WIMAX by Varying The Voice codes and Buffer size Nueafun Pimwong Department of Computer Science and Engineering Thapar University, Patiala, India R.K. Sharma Department of Computer Science and Engineering Thapar University, Patiala, India Visit Boonchom Division of Computer and Information Technology, Faculty of Science, Thaksin University, Thailand Volume 5Issue 7, , 2016, ISSN: [11] VoIP QoS on l ow speed links Ivana Pezelj Julije Oegovic Ljubomir AUTHORS. Sumera Saleem Faculty of Engineering, Sciences and Technology Iqra University, Karachi, Pakistan.. Mansoor Ahmed Tahir Faculty of Engineering, Sciences and Technology Iqra University, Karachi, Pakistan. 6