Evaluating the Effect of IP and IGP on the ICMP Throughput of a WAN

Transcription

1 Evaluating the Effect of IP and IGP on the ICMP Throughput of a WAN Burhan ul Islam Khan 1,a, Humaira Dar 2,b, Asadullah Shah 3,c and Rashidah F. Olanrewaju 4,d 1,2,4 Department of Computer and Information Engineering, Kulliyyah of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia 3 Department of Computer Science, Kulliyyah of Information and Communication Technology, International Islamic University Malaysia a burhan.iium@gmail.com, b engg87.iium@gmail.com, c asadullah@kict.iium.edu.my, d frashidah@yahoo.com Article Info Received: 3 rd March 2013 Accepted: 1 st April 2013 Published online: 1 st June 2013 ISSN: ABSTRACT Routing can rightly be regarded as the heartbeat of any WAN (Wide Area Network) setup; and same holds true when it comes to internet. Routing has a direct influence on the speed of internet surfing. Today the world is witnessing the steady switch of Internet from IPv4 to IPv6. The main goal addressed in this paper is to evaluate the effect of different combinations of Interior Gateway Protocol and Internet Protocol on the ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) based throughput of a WAN. Results are fetched by simulating WANs on Packet Tracer and a 2 2 experimental design technique has been employed for analysing results and drawing conclusions. Keywords: IPv4, IPv6, TCP, ICMP, WAN, Packet Tracer, IGP, EIGRP and OSPF. 1. Introduction IP Addressing Schema and Routing protocols play a pivotal role in determining the performance of the communication Networks. The performance of different routing protocols as is the case with IP protocols is different from one another. In the context of routing protocol performance, each of them has different architecture, adaptability, route processing delays and convergence capabilities ( Islam & Ashique, 2010). Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Enhanced Interior Gateway Protocol (EIGRP) are routing protocol which is a member of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). Previously OSPF has been a standard routing protocol for the routers. EIGRP was first time used by Cisco in their routers and for that matter EIGRP was developed by Cisco. EIGRP has emerged as a better choice than OSPF as the earlier uses lesser memory and CPU resources than the latter. This is due to the fact that OSPF uses the traditional link state technique while EIGRP employs the Distance Vector (Hogg, 2002). When the two protocols were compared using OPNET it was established that EIGRP performed better than OSPF in terms of delay time, routing time, memory time and CPU time while OSPF was able to pass on more data (Thorenoor, 2010). The two protocols

2 were also compared by OPNET simulation for video streaming application, the results showed that OSPF has lesser delay and more throughputs while Packet loss was lesser with EIGRP ( Islam & Ashique, 2010). The rerouting time after there is a failure link is experiment with many methods such as equal cost multipath, loop free alternates, and U-turn alternate which are compatible in OSPF protocol (Goyal, et al.). Public Internet suffered a serious problem of the shortage of IPv4 address space which was overcome by the steady migration to IPv6 from IPv4 ( Deering & Hinden, December 1998) (Hagen, May 2010) (Ettikan, October 2000). The migration is gradual or IPv6 and IPv4 were made to coexist together on the Internet ( Gamess & Morales, October 2007) (Blanchet, January 2006). Many problems which existed in the IPv4 were fixed in IPv6 such as the small address pool etc. The number of bits required to represent a single address in IPv6 is 128 which was earlier 32 bits only with IPv4.Improvements have been made to IPv4 in many areas such as network auto-configuration, routing, quality of service etc. in IPv6 (Gamess & Morales, April, 2011). The performance of IPv4 and IPv6 on platforms such as Windows 2000, RedHat 7.3 and Solaris in terms of TCP/UDP throughput, CPU utilization, latency and web-based performance characteristics has been evaluated in (Zeadally & Raicu, May 2003) (Zeadally, Wasseem, & Raicu, May2004.). Furthermore in (Mohamed, Buhari, & Saleem, June 2006) performance of IPv4 and IPv6 has been evaluated on RedHat 9, Windows 2003 and FreeBSD4.9 in terms of socket-creation time, TCP connection time and round-trip time. The main goal of this paper is to determine the effect of choosing among IP protocol (IPv4 or IPv6) and IGP (EIGRP or OSPF) on the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) based throughput (i.e. number of eco packets that can be transmitted between two hosts in different networks per second). A 2 2 experiment design has been used in determining the impact of IP version and IGP protocol selection on the throughput. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe the two Experiment setups each in turn divided into two stages, the results got from here are pronounced in Section 3. In Section 4 the experimentation results are analyzed by means of 2 2 experimental designs to aid the conclusions described in Section Experimental Setup: The experimentation can be divided into two Experimental setups: (1) comparing the ICMP based throughput of the routers using OSPF & EIGRP protocols on IPv4 networks (2) comparing the ICMP based throughput of the routers using OSPF & EIGRP protocols onipv6 networks. 2.1 Experimental Setup 1: IGP and IPv Stage1: OSPF and IPv4 Three routers which in this case are CISCO 1841 series routers are connected via Ethernet interfaces as shown in the Fig.1. Logical addressing is done via IPv4 scheme. All the interfaces of the routers are allocated 32 bit IP addresses. Interfaces connecting two routers are given IP address from the same class while two different interfaces of the same router are given IP address pertaining to different class. Cisco series switches are connected to the routers named as New York and Islamabad. The end devices are connected to the network 72

3 via switch. An IP address is allocated to each of the end devices via Dynamic Host Control Protocol mechanism (DHCP). The underlying routing protocol for the network in the first case is OSPF i.e. the routers are configured according to OSPF in the first case. Four ICMP packets are being sent from NY router to fast Ethernet 0/1 interface of Islamabad router and average time interval for each packet is noted. No. Of ICMP packets that can send within 1 second is derived by dividing one second (1000 milliseconds) by average time interval taken by each packet. Results are shown in Fig Stage 2: EIGRP and IPv4 In the second stage same procedure is followed as that the first stage of Experimental setup 1 but here the routers are configured using EIGRP protocol instead of the OSPF. Results are shown in Fig.3. Fig.1: Simulated Network by means of the Packet Tracer Using IPv4 addressing Scheme 73

4 Fig. 2 : Results with IPv4 and underlying routers were using OSPF routing protocol 74

5 Fig. 3: Results with IPv4 and underlying routers were using EIGRP routing protocol 2.2 Experimental Setup 2: IGP and IPv Stage 1: OSPF and IPv6 In this stage the three routers are connected via Ethernet interfaces and IPv6 addressing scheme is being employed. Here all the interfaces of the router are allocated 128 bit IP addresses as shown in the figure 4. Cisco series switches are connected to the routers named as New York and Islamabad. The end devices are connected to the network via switch. An IP address is allocated to each of the end devices via auto configuration addressing feature of IPv6 addressing scheme. The underlying routing protocol for the network in the first case is OSPF i.e. the routers are configured according to OSPF. Four ICMP packets each of 32 bytes are being sent from NY router to fast Ethernet 0/1 interface of Islamabad router and average time interval for each packet is noted. Number of ICMP packets that could be sent within 1 second is derived by dividing one second (1000 milliseconds) by average time interval taken by the packet to reach its destination (which will be the throughput in this experiment setup). Results are shown in Fig Stage 2: EIGRP and IPv6 In the second stage same procedure is followed as that the first stage of Experimental setup 2 but here the routers are configured using EIGRP protocol instead of the OSPF. Results are shown in Fig.6. 75

6 Fig. 4: Simulated Network by means of the Packet Tracer Using IPv6 addressing Scheme 76

7 Fig. 5: Results with IPv6 and underlying routers were using OSPF routing protocol Fig. 6: Results with IPv6 and underlying routers were using EIGRP routing protocol 77

8 3. Experimental Results Table 1 depicts the results of the two experimental setups carried out in Section 2. Table 1: Experimentation Results S. No Routing Addressing Avg. Transmission Throughput Protocol Schema time 1. OSPF IPv4 28 [m sec] 36 eco packets per sec 2. EIGRP IPv4 25 [m sec] 40 eco packets per sec 3. OSPF IPv6 24 [m sec] 42 eco packets per sec 4. EIGRP IPv6 21 [m sec] 48 eco packets per sec When OSPF routing protocol is used along with IPv4 addressing Scheme Throughput=1000/28= 36 ICMP packets per second. When EIGRP routing protocol is used along with IPv4 addressing Scheme Throughput=1000/25= 40 ICMP packets per second. When OSPF routing protocol is used along with IPv6 addressing Scheme Throughput=1000/24= 42 ICMP packets per second. When EIGRP routing protocol is used along with IPv6 addressing Scheme Throughput=1000/21= 48 ICMP packets per second. 4. Analysis We study the impact of choosing appropriate Internet Protocol version and underlying routing protocol on the performance of a network by making use of a 2 k factorial design with k = 2. In this case, there are two factors the IP version and IGP routing protocol each at two levels. Two levels for IP version are IPv4 and IPv6. Two levels for IGP Routing protocol are OSPF and EIGRP.2 2 designs is easily analyzed using a regression model in eq. 1 below. Two levels of each of the two factors are chosen for the initial simulation. The performance of the network in terms of echo packets sent per second is listed in Table 2. Table 2 : Performance in packets transmitted per second Routing Protocol Ipv4 Ipv6 OSPF 36 packets per sec 42 packets per sec EIGRP 40 packets per sec 48 packets per sec Defining two variables x A and x B as follows: x A = x B = 78

9 The performance y in terms of echo packets sent per second is regressed on x A and x B using a Nonlinear regression model of the form as show in Eq. 1 below: y= x 0 + q A x A + q B x B + q AB x A x B (1) In general, any 2 2 design can be analyzed as illustrated in the table 3. Table 3: Analysis of a 2 2 Design Experiments A B Y y y y y4 The four observed responses are represented by y1, y2, y3 and y4 respectively. The correspondence between the factor levels and their responses is shown in Table 1. The model for a 2 2 design is illustrated by the Eq. 1. Substituting the four observations in the model: y 1 = q 0 q A q B + q AB (2) y 2 = q 0 + q A q B q AB (3) y 3 = q 0 q A + q B q AB (4) y 4 = q 0 + q A + q B + q AB (5) Solving these equations for q i s, one gets q 0 =1/4{ y 1 + y 2 + y 3 + y 4 } (6) q A =1/4{-y 1 + y 2 - y 3 + y 4 } (7) q B =1/4{-y 1 - y 2 + y 3 + y 4 } (8) q AB =1/4{ y 1 - y 2- y 3 + y 4 } (9) Expressions for q A, q B, and q AB are linear combinations of the responses such that the sum of the coefficients is zero. Such expressions are called contrasts. The coefficient of y i s in the equation for q A are identical to the levels of A listed in Table 3. q A can be obtained by multiplying the columns A and y in the table. This is also true for q B and q AB, both of which can be obtained by multiplying the respective level columns with the response column. This observation leads us to the sign table method for calculating effects, as illustrated in the table 4. I A B AB Y

10 Total Total/4 Table 4: Sign Table Method of Calculating Effects In a 22 Design The regression equation becomes: y= x A + 2.5x B + 0.5x A x B (10) The result is interpreted as follows. The mean performance is 41.5 packets per second; the effect of IP version is 3.5 packets per second; the effect of underlying protocol is 2.5 packets per second; and the interaction between IP version and underlying protocol is 0.5 packets per second. 4.1 Variation Allocation Total variation of y or Sum of Squares Total (SST) =4q A 2 +4 q B 2 +4 q AB 2 =4* *6.25+4*.25 =4*(18.75) =75 Sum of Squares due to A (SSA) = 4q A 2 = 49 Sum of Squares due to B (SSB) = 4q B 2 = 25 Sum of Squares due to AB (SSAB) = 4q AB 2 = 1 Fraction of Variation explained by A (IP version) =SSA/SST= 49/75=65.33% Fraction of Variation explained by B (IGP protocol) =SSB/SST= 25/75=33.33% Fraction of Variation explained by AB (Interaction between IP version and IGP) 80 =SSAB/SST= 1/75=1.33% Relative Importance of factors = A (IP version) > B (IGP protocol) > AB (Interaction between IP version and IGP) 5. Conclusion and Future Work In this paper we quantified the effect of using IP addressing Schema and the IGP protocols on the ICMP throughput of the network by making use of a 2 k factorial design with k = 2.From the analysis carried out in Section 4 using the 2 2 design following could be concluded: Mean performance with using IPv4 and IPv6 for interior gateway protocols is 41.5 ICMP packets per second which is approximately 1.1 times the average performance of using only IPv4 for OSPF and EIGRP protocols. Effect of selecting appropriate IP version is 40% more than the effect of selecting among the two IGP protocols, on the throughput of the system. Mutual interaction among the IP version & underlying IGP routing protocol is least than all others accounting to only.5 packets per second. It is evident from the paper that

11 performance of both IGP protocols (OSPF & EIGRP) increases by 18.4% approximately, if we are selecting the newer version of Internet Protocol IPv6 in place of IPv4. Furthermore, it is also evident that EIGRP protocol performs approximately times better on an average with both IPv4 & IPv6 networks when compared to its OSPF counterpart. As of now in this paper, we only have evaluated the ICMP throughput performance of two widely used internet routing protocols i.e. OSPF and EIGRP with regard to different IP versions, but in near future we shall compare the performance of the same for the data payload packets. Also other familiar protocols like RIP, IGRP, EIGRP, OSPF, ISIS, and BGP can also be compared in terms of ICMP throughput for simple WAN using 2 k factorial design. 6. References Deering, S., & Hinden, R. (December 1998). Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. RFC Gamess, E., & Morales, N. (October 2007). Implementing IPv6 at Central University of Venezuela. 4th International IFIP/ACM Latin America Networking Conference. Costa Rica. Islam, M., & Ashique, M. (2010). Simulation-Based Comparative Study of EIGRP and OSPF for Real-Time Applications. Blanchet, M. (January 2006). Migrating to IPv6: A Practical Guide to Implementing IPv6 in Mobile and Fixed Networks (First ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Ettikan, K. (October 2000). IPv6 Dual Stack Transition Technique Performance Analysis: KAME on FreeBSD as the Case. Jalan Multimedia: Faculty of Information Technology, Multimedia. Gamess, E., & Morales, N. (April, 2011). Modeling IPv4 and IPv6 Performance in Ethernet Networks. International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, 3. Goyal, M., Soperi, M., Baccelli, E., Choudhury, G., Shaikh, A., Hosseini, H., et al. (n.d.). Improving Convergence Speed and Scalability in OSPF: A Survey. (99), Hagen, S. (May 2010). IPv6 Essentials (Second ed.). O Reilly. Hogg, S. (2002). EIGRP and OSPF Comparison For Client. Islam, M. N., & Ashique, M. A. (May 14, 2010). Simulation Based EIGRP over OSPF Performance Analysis. Blekinge Institute of Technology Thesis no: Mohamed, S., Buhari, M., & Saleem, H. (June 2006). Performance Comparison of Packet Transmission over IPv6 Network on Different Platforms. IEE Proceedings Communications, 3, Thorenoor, S. G. (2010). Dynamic Routing Protocol implementation decision between EIGRP, OSPF and RIP based on Technical Background Using OPNET. ICCNT. 81

12 Zeadally, S., & Raicu, I. (May 2003). Evaluating IPv6 on Windows and Solaris. IEEE Internet Computing, Zeadally, S., Wasseem, R., & Raicu, I. (May2004.). Comparison of End-System IPv6 Protocol Stacks. IEE Proceedings Communications, 3,