InternationalJournal of ComputerScienceTrendsand Technology(IJCST) Volume3 Issue 4,Jul-Aug 2015 ISSN: 2347-8578www.ijcstjournal.org Page 169 ComparativeAnalysis of MPLS Signaling Protocols DamanjitKaur [1], Er.Dinesh Kumar[2] Department of Computer Science and Engineering GZS PTU Campus, Bathinda Punjab-India ABSTRACT MPLSisthepioneerinServiceProviderNetworks.Everyserviceprovider use MPLS in its core network for fast label switching.ThispaperexplainsMPLSanditssignalingprotocolsi.e.LDP,CR-LDP,RSVP,RSVP-TE.Thispaper explainseverysignalingprotocolthatisusedinMultiprotocolLabelSwitchingenvironment.Thispaperexplains differences between MPLSsignaling protocols on the basis of performance and security. Keywords: - MPLS, LDP,RSVP,CR-LDP,TE,LABEL,LSP I.INTRODUCTION MultiprotocolLabelSwitching(MPLS)isapacket-forwardingtechnologyusedinhighperformance telecommunicationnetworks.Itisapopularnetworking technology that uses labels attached to packets to forward themthroughthenetwork.Routersforwardthet raffic by looking at the label and not the destination address, so the packets are forwarded by label switching technique instead of IP Switching. Thefact that the MPLS Labels are used to forwardthepacketsandnolongerthedestinationIP addresshasled to the popularity of MPLS. Before MPLS, FrameRelayandATMwerethemostpopularWAN protocols.TheyprovideLayer2VPNservicetowards Layer3customerrouters.Theyarestillusedtoday,but customers are shifted to MPLS because of its benefits like "theuseofoneunifiednetworkinfrastructure","Border GatewayProtocol(BGP)-freecore","betterIPoverATM integration","Peer-to-PeermodelforMPLSVPN", "Optimaltrafficflow","Trafficengineering" etc. MPLSuseslabelstoforwardippacketsintheservice providernetwork.OneMPLSlabelisof32bitswiththe certain structure shown below. Figure 1 - MPLS Label Format First 20 bits are the label value. This value can be between 0and220-1,or1,048,575.First16 values are reserved and have special meaning. Bits 20to 22 are three experimental bitsusedforQualityofService(QoS)purposes.Bit23is theBottomofStack(BoS)bit.Itis0,unlessthelabelis bottomlabel of the stack. Bits 24 to 31 are eight bits used for Timeto Live(TTL),just like in IP header. A.MPLS Signaling Protocols - MPLS signaling protocols are used for label switching purposes.ALabelSwitchPath(LSP)mustbesetup with labels assigned at each hop before forwarding of trafficcantakeplace.VarioustypesofMPLS Signaling protocols are: B.Label Distribution Protocol(LDP) LDPisalabeldistributionprotocolsthatbehaveslikea routingprotocol.Routercreatespeerrelationshipwith connectedMPLSRouterandshareslabelswiththepeer router.LDPisanopenstandardprotocolthatexchanges labels and stores them in the Label Information Base(LIB). ThelabelinformationintheLIBisthenusedinthe data plane to provide MPLSfunctionality, as follows: AlabelisaddedtotheIPforwardingtable(FIB) to map an IP prefixto a next-hop label. AlocallygeneratedlabelisaddedtotheLabel ForwardingInformationBase(LFIB)andmapped to a next-hop label. C.Constraint-Based routed LDP CR-LDPisasetofextensionstoLDPspecifically designedtofacilitateconstraint-basedroutingof LSPs. It usesTCPsessionsbetweenLSRpeersandsendslabel distributionmessagesalongthesessions.CR-LDP RESEARCHARTICLEOPENACCESS InternationalJournal of ComputerScienceTrendsand Technology(IJCST) Volume3 Issue 4,Jul-Aug 2015 ISSN: 2347-8578www.ijcstjournal.org Page 170 standards attempt to enable the LDP protocol to work over anexplicitroute,transportingvarioustrafficparameters for resource reservation as well as the options for CR-LSP robustness feature. D.Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) RSVPwasoriginallydesignedasameansforahostto determineifthereisenoughbandwidthavailablefora particularflow.ItisusedforestablishingLSPsinMPLS networks. E.RSVP-TE TheoriginalRSVPstandardwasextendedtocarryan MPLSlabelandTEinformation.RSPVisusedwith MPLS TE to signal a LSP for a TE tunnel whether the path isbuiltdynamicallyordefinedexplicitly.RSVPuses downstreamon demand label distribution, meaning a label isonlyadvertisedupstreamoncealabelfromthe downstreamLSRisreceived.RSVP-TEprovidessupport for : Explicitpath configuration Path numbering Route Recording Abasicmplsfigureshowinglabeldistributionisshown below : Figure 2: MPLS Label forwarding mechanism II.LITERATURESURVEY MultiprotocolLabelSwitchingArchitecture[1]byE. RosenofCiscoSystems,A.ViswanathanofForce10 Networks,andR.CallonofJuniperNetworksinInternet EngineeringTaskForce(IETF)RFC-3031specifiesthe architectureofMultiprotocolLabelSwitching(MPLS).It isthefirststandarddocumentofMultiprotocolLabel Switching by IETFMPLSWorking Group. LDPSpecification[2]byL.AndersonofNortel Networks, P.DoolanofEnnovateNetworks,N.FeldmanofIBM Corporation,A.FredetteofPhotonExCorporationandB. ThomasofCiscoSystemsinIETFRFC-3036describes LabelDistributionprotocol,bywhichLSRsdistribute labelstosupport MPLS forwarding along normally routed paths.Thisdocumentisthefirststandarddocument for LabelDistributionProtocol(LDP)byIETFMPLS Working Group. FaultTolerancefortheLabelDistributionProtocol (LDP)[3]byA.Farrel,Ed.ofMovazNetworksinIETF RFC3479identifiesissuesintheLDPspecificationin RFC3036,"LDPSpecification",thatmakeitdifficultto implementanFTLSRusingthecurrentLDPprotocols, and defines enhancements to the LDP specification to ease such FT LSRimplementations. PseudowireSetupandMaintenanceUsingtheLabel DistributionProtocol(LDP)[4]byL.Martini,Ed.,E. RosenbyCiscoSystems,N.El-AawarofLevel3 Communications,T.SmithofNetwork Appliance Inc. and G.HeronofTellabsinIETFRFC4447 describes Layer 2 services(suchasFrameRelay,AsynchronousTransfer Mode,andEthernet)canbe"emulated"overanMPLS backbonebyencapsulatingtheLayer2ProtocolData Units(PDU)andtransmittingthemover"pseudowires". It isalsopossibletousepseudowirestoprovidelow-rate TimeDivisionMultiplexedandaSynchronousOptical NETworkingcircuitemulationoveranMPLS-enabled network.Thisdocumentspecifiesaprotocolfor establishingandmaintainingthepseudowires,using extensions to Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). VirtualPrivateLANService(VPLS)UsingLabel DistributionProtocol(LDP)Signaling[5]byM.Lasserre, Ed.,V.Kompella,Ed.ofAlcatelLucentinIETFRFC 4762describesaVirtualPrivateLANService(VPLS) solutionusingpseudowires,aservicepreviously implemented over other tunneling technologies and known asTransparentLANServices(TLS).AVPLScreatesan emulatedLANsegmentforagivensetofusers;i.e.,it creates a Layer 2 broadcast domain that is fully capable of learningandforwardingonEthernet MAC addresses and thatisclosedtoagivensetofusers.MultipleVPLS servicescanbesupportedfromasingleProviderEdge (PE)node.Thisdocumentdescribesthecontrolplane functionsofsignalingpseudowirelabelsusingLabel DistributionProtocol(LDP),extendingRFC4447.Itis agnostic to discovery protocols. The data plane functions offorwarding are also described, focusing in particular on the learning of MAC addresses. Constraint-BasedLSPSetupusingLDP[7]byJamoussiof NortelNetworks,L.Anderson,UtforsAB,R.Callonof JuniperNetworks,R.DantuofNetrakeCorporation,L. WuofCiscoSystems,P.DoolanofOTBConsulting InternationalJournal of ComputerScienceTrendsand Technology(IJCST) Volume3 Issue 4,Jul-Aug 2015 ISSN: 2347-8578www.ijcstjournal.org Page 171 Corporation,T.Worster,N.Feldman of IBM Corporation, A.FredetteofANFConsulting,M.GirishofAtoga Systems,E.Gray,Sandburst,J.HeinanenofSong Networks,T.KiltyofNewbridgeNetworksandA.Malis ofVivaceNetworksinIETFRFC3212specifies mechanismsandTLVs(Type/Length/Value)forsupport of CR-LSPs (constraint-based routed Label Switched Path) usingLDP(LabelDistributionProtocol).This specification proposes an end-to-end setup mechanism of a CR-LSPinitiatedbytheingressLSR(LabelSwitching Router).Wealsospecifymechanismstoprovidemeans for reservation of resources using LDP. LSPModificationUsingCR-LDP[8]ZbyJ.Ashof AT&T,Y.LeeofCeterusNetworks,P.Ashwood-Smith, B.Jamoussi,D.Fedyk,D.Skaleckiof Nortel Networks, L. LiofSS8NetworksinIETFRFC3214presentsan approachtomodifythebandwidthandpossiblyother parametersofanestablishedCR-LSP(Constraint-based RoutedLabelSwitchedPaths)using CR-LDP (Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol) without service interruption.AfteraCR-LSPissetup,itsbandwidth reservationmayneedtobechangedbythenetwork operator,duetothenewrequirementsforthetraffic carriedonthatCR-LSP.TheLSP modification feature can besupportedbyCR-LDPbyuseofthemodifyvalue for theactionindicatorflagintheLSPIDTLV.Thisfeature has application in dynamic network resources management wheretrafficofdifferentprioritiesandserviceclassesis involved. ResourceReSerVationProtocol(RSVP)[9]byR.Braden, Ed.andS.Bersonof ISI Networks, L. Zhang of UCLA, S. HerzogofIBMResearch,andS.JaminofUniversityof MichiganinIETFRFC2205describes version 1 of RSVP, aresourcereservationsetupprotocoldesignedforan integratedservicesInternet.RSVPprovidesreceiver-initiatedsetupofresourcereservationsformulticastor unicastdataflows,withgoodscalingandrobustness properties. RSVPOperationOverIPTunnels[10]byA.Terzisof UCLA,J.KrawczykofArrowPointCommunications,J. WroclawskiofMITLCS,andL.Zhangof UCLA in IETF RFC2746describesanapproachforprovidingRSVP protocolservicesoverIPtunnels.Itbrieflydescribethe problem,thecharacteristics of possible solutions, and the designgoals.It,thenpresentthedetailsofan implementationwhich meets our design goals. SupportforResourceReservationProtocolTraffic Engineering(RSVP-TE)inLayer3VirtualPrivate Networks(L3VPNs)[12]byK.Kumaki,Ed.andP.Jiang ofKDDICorporation,T.MuraiofFurukawaNetwork SolutionCorporation,D.ChengofHuaweiTechnologies, S.MatsushimaofSoftbankTelecominIETFRFC6882 describeshowtosupportRSVP-TEbetweencustomer siteswhenasingle PE supports multiple VPNs and labels are not used to identify VPNs between PEs. S.Veni,Dr.G.M.KadharNawazandP.Praba, PerformanceAnalysisofNetworkTrafficBehaviorin ConventionalNetworkoverMPLS[14],ProcofICCCCT 2010IEEEInternationalConference,Nagercoil,Tamil Nadu, Indiadid a performance analysis on network traffic forwardingbehavior inside MPLSbackbone network. III.PROBLEM DEFINITATION MPLS is the technology that creates the backbone network ofalmostallthemajorISPsintheworld. It can transport variouspayloadslikeLayer2intheformofEthernet, FrameRelay,ATM,PPP,HDLC etc and Layer 3 payloads likeIPv4andIPv6.Itswitchestrafficbetweeninterfaces by looking at labels instead of destination IP lookup, so it doesforwardingbasedonlocally significant label values. Labelsaredistributedbetweentworoutersusing various LabeldistributionprotocolslikeTDP,LDP,BGP Signaling,CR-LDP,RSVP,RSVP-TE.MPLScanalsobe of various types like. Main distribution protocols are LDP, RSVPandCR-LDP.Selectingthebestlabeldistribution protocol for MPLS networks is very important as MPLS is aslabeldistributionisthesoulofMPLS just like routing protocolsforIP.Selectionofthewrongprotocolfor MPLScanharmtheperformanceandalsoprovider various other degradation in the service provider networks. IV.OBJECTIVES Objective of this paper is to do a comparative and behavior analysesofall the MPLS signaling protocols and find the best one according to the specific requirements and design. Variouscase studies will be done to achieve this: 1.) Which of the label distribution protocol works best in a basic Layer 3 MPLS? 2.)Whichofthelabeldistributionprotocol works best in an environment where trafficengineering is necessary? 3.)Whichofthelabeldistributionprotocol works best in various Layer 2 MPLS/VPLSdesigns? InternationalJournal of ComputerScienceTrendsand Technology(IJCST) Volume3 Issue 4,Jul-Aug 2015 ISSN: 2347-8578www.ijcstjournal.org Page 172 4.) Which of the label distribution protocol has the fastest convergence? 5.)HowlabeldistributionprotocolworkswithQoS,and whichoneofthemworksbestintermsofworkingwith QoS? V.RESULTS A.Performance Analysis - For performance analysis, convergence time is used check, howmuchtimeMPLSlayer3VPNtakeswhenprimary linkinMPLSbackbonenetworkgoesdown,Topology used is shown below. Figure 3: MPLS L3 VPN t opology used in Thesis Clearlyfromthetopologyshownabove,itisshown that CE_1isacustomerofInternetServiceProviderABC, CustomerAhastwositesatdifferentlocationsthatare connectedwiththehelpofMPLSLayer3basedVPN. CustomerA,whentransfersdata,voiceorvideotraffic fromCustomer A _Site_1 to Customer A_Site_ 2, has two pathsinthecorenetworkofISP_ABCviaP1andP2. TrafficmainlymovestowardsP1whichisactingasa primarypathandP2isinuseonlywhenP1goesdown.When P1 goes down, convergence time taken with default timersby MPLSL3VPNis shown in the graph below: Figure 4: MPLS L3VPN Convergence Time Graph t aken from PRTG Now as we see the graph in Figure 4.2, it shows that there isadelayofaroundfivesecondswhentrafficfrom primarylinkshiftstobackuplinkincaseofprimarylink failureintheMPLSBackbonenetwork. Five seconds is a largeamountoftimewhenwetalkaboutnetwork convergenceintodays'sworldwhereVoiceandVideo basedtrafficisakindofnecessitywithVideo Conferencingsolutions,VoiceMails,voicemessaging solutions etc. Wecanusevariousmethodstofastentheconvergence timewithBidirectionalForwardingDetectionorby decreasingtheInteriorGatewayProtocoltimers.IGPs usedinServiceprovidernetworkcanbeeitherOpen ShortestPathFirst(OSPF)orIntermediateSystemto IntermediateSystem(IS-IS),asonlyLinkStaterouting protocolsarepreferredinInternetServiceProvider(ISP). BoththeseprotocolsuseDijkstraShortestPathFirst Algorithm(SPF).WecanshortenthetimersbetweenSPF calculations or other IGP timers to reduce the convergence time.Howthiswillhelpiswheneveraprimarylinkgoes down,SPFcalculationscanbedoneforbackuplinkin muchfastertimethanbyusingdefaulttimers.After changingthedefault hello timer and dead timer interval in OSPFwhichisusedasIGPinsidetheISPnetworkfor internalrouting,the results that i got is shown below in a graph taken with the help of PRTFTrafficAnalyzer : Figure 5: MPLS Layer 3 Convergence Graph wit h OSPF Timers Tuned. In the above graph, what the result is showing is that there isnotmuchofadifferencethatcanbemadebytuning HelloorDeadTimersofIGPthatcanbeusedinsidean ISPinternalnetwork.Nowlet'strytochangetheSPF calculationtimersinsideanISPnetwork.Wewillreduce the timers of SPF calculations that can be done in the case ofsomelinkfailuresothatbackuppathSPFcalculation canbedoneinmuchfastmanner.OnePEisconnected withotherPEusinganIGPprotocol,soitwilldefinitely makeadifferenceinourMPLSnetwork.Graphbelow showstheconvergencetimebetween Primary Link failure and trafficshifting fromprimarylinktowards backup link. InternationalJournal of ComputerScienceTrendsand Technology(IJCST) Volume3 Issue 4,Jul-Aug 2015 ISSN: 2347-8578www.ijcstjournal.org Page 173 Figure6:MPLSLayer3VPNconvergencegraphwit hOSPFSPF Calculat ion Timers t uned Aswecansee,convergencetimeisreducedfrom5-5.5 secondsto2-2.5secondswhichismuchbetterthanthe normalresults.The other two types of Label Distribution Protocols act in totallydifferentmannerthantheLDP.Resource ReservationProtocol(RSVP)andCR-LDP(Constraint-BasedRouterLDP)areusedtosupportTraffic EngineeringandtheLabelSwitchPaths(LSPs)thatare madeusingthesetwoprotocolsareknownasTraffic Engineered LSPs. CR-LDPisaextensiontoLDPandusesTCPsessions betweenLSRpeersjustlikeLDP.Thisallowsareliable distributionofmessagesbetweenLSRpeers.Basicflow setup in CR-LDPis shown below: Figure 7: Basic CR-LDP LSP flow TheingressLSR,LSRA,needsto set up a new LSP betweentoLSRC.Thetrafficparameterswhichare requiredfortheSessionfor the network enables LSR AtodeterminethattheroutefromLSRAtoLSRC whichformsthenewLSPshouldgothrough LSR B.InthismethodLSRAcreatesaLABEL_REQUEST messagewithanexplicitrouteof(B,C)andinthis requestmessageit will also request traffic parameters for the new route. LSR A reserves the resources which itneedsforthenewLSP,andthenitforwardsthe LABEL_REQUESTto LSRB on the TCP session. LSRB,whenreceivetheLABEL_REQUEST message,determinesthatitisnottheEgressrouter, and it then forwards the request along the route which was specified in the message. It reserves the resources which wererequested for the new LSP, then modifies theexplicitrouteintheLABEL_REQUESTmessage,andthenpassesthemessagetoLSRC.LSRBcan alsoreducethereservationitmakesfor the new LSP iftheappropriateparametersweremarkedas negotiable in the LABEL_REQUEST LSRCthenchecksthatitistheegressforthisnew LSP. It performs the final negotiation on the resources andcreatedthereservation for the LSP. It allocates a labeltothenewLSP and distributes the label to LSR BintheLABEL_MAPPINGmessage,whichalso containsthefinaltrafficparametersreservedforthe LSP. AftertheaboveprocessLSRBreceivesthe LABEL_MAPPINGandmatchesittotheoriginal requestusingtheLSPIDcontainedinboth LABEL_REQUESTandLABEL_MAPPING message. LSRAwhenreceivestheLABEL_MAPPING,does not have to allocate a label and it just forward it to an upstreamLSRbecauseitistheingressLSRforthe new LSP. B.Reservation Protocol(RSVP)RSVP exchanges the messages to reserve resources across a network for IP flows. It is used for LSP tunnels so that it canbeusedtodistributeMPLSlabels.ItusesUDPto communicatebetweenLSRPeers.Thereisnoneedto maintain the TCP session, but it must be able to handle the lossofcontrolmessages.Basicflowfor LSP setup using RSVPis shown below : Figure 8:RSVP LSP Set up Flow LSRA,whichistheingressLSR,determinesthatit needstosetupanewLSPtoLSRC.Thetraffic parameters required for the session enables the LSR A to determine that the route for the new LSP should go throughLSRB.Thisprocessisnotlikethehop-by-hoproutetowardsLSRC.LSRAbuildsaPath message with an explicit route of (B,C) and the details oftherouterequested for the new route. LSR A now sends the IP datagram to LSRB. InternationalJournal of ComputerScienceTrendsand Technology(IJCST) Volume3 Issue 4,Jul-Aug 2015 ISSN: 2347-8578www.ijcstjournal.org Page 174 LSRBreceivesthePathrequest,whichthen determines that LSR B is not the egress router for the LSP. It then modifies the explicit route and passes the Path message to the LSRC. WhenmessageisreceivedatLSRC,LSRCthen determinesthatitistheegressrouterfortheLSP, determinesfromtherequestedtrafficparameters about the bandwidth it needsto reserve and allocates theresourcesasrequired.Alabelisselectedfor the newLSP and then the label is distributed to LSR B in a Resv message. It also includes the actual or original details of the required reservation for the LSP. LSRBreceivesthe reservation message and matches itwiththeactualreservationrequestmessageusing the LSP ID, which is contained in both the PATH and RESVmessage.It then determines the total resources thatareneededintheRESVmessage,allocatesthe labelfortheLSP,createstheforwardingtableand passes the new label to LSR A in the RESVmessage. TheprocessingatLSRAissimilar,thesingle differenceisthatitdoesnothavetoallocateanew labelandforwardthisto an upstream LSR because it is the ingress point for the new LSP. GraphcreatedwithRSVPusedintheMPLSasa signaling protocol is defined below : Figure9:Default MaxandMinimumt imeandconvergence t ime in t opology using RSVP RSVP Reservation message is shown below taken from R2 and R7 : Figure 10: Out putshowing Pat h Reservat ion bet ween PE devices Also t he graphs were t aken using Layer 2 MPLS VPN using LDPand RSVP, which are shown below : Figure10:Max,Minand Convergence t ime in L2 MPLS VPN using LDP in t he core. Figure 11: Max, Min, and Convergence Time in MPLS L2 VPN wit h RSVP usedin t he core InternationalJournal of ComputerScienceTrendsand Technology(IJCST) Volume3 Issue 4,Jul-Aug 2015 ISSN: 2347-8578www.ijcstjournal.org Page 175 BylookingattheabovetwographsofMPLSL2 VPNs, itsclearthattherearenotmuchdifferencesinthe maximum,minimumandconvergencetimeswhendefault timersorSPFcalculationsaretuned.ButL2VPN providesaslightlybetterperformance that MPLS Layer 3 VPNs. Figure12:Max,MinandConvergencet imeinMPLSL2VPNwit h RSPV ,SPF t imers t uned. Table:1 Table showing performance analysis of MPLS prot ocols. Table: 2 Table showing difference bet ween MPLS prot ocols. C.Security Analysis of MPLS Layer VPNs SecurityinMPLScanbeachievedbyusingvarious methods.Securityisimportant in MPLS networks. All the trafficlikeVoice,DataandVideotraffic that transits from ISPforcustomernetworksneededtobesecure,asan insecureISPnetworkmeansCustomerdatawillbe insecure.MPLSnetworkscanbemadesecureby performingauthenticationfeaturebetweenLabel DistributionProtocol(LDP)meansMPLSneighborship can be made only if the passwords on the both end of the neighborsarematched.Bestthingthatcanbedonefor securingMPLSisthatwecan use IPSec for securing our communicationbetweenMPLSnetworksfromour customer site also. IPSec can be used in various scenarios which can be - 1.)Provider Edge to Provider Edge(PE-PE) 2.)Customer Edge to Customer Edge(CE-CE) 3.)Provider to Provider (P-P) BestpracticeistouseCE-CEIPSecimplementation, wheretrafficsourcedfromCEgetsencryptedand decryptionisdoneinCEsiteonthe other end. We have used the MPLS Layer 3 design shown in Figure 1.1 for our MPLSNetworkSecurityImplementation.Wehaveused IPSecfortrafficbetween1.1.1.1whichisonCE1and 8.8.8.8onCE2andaftercreating a secure tunnel between CE1andCE2;weareabletoaccessR8viaR1 as shown in the figure below: Figure 13: R1 checking reachabilit y wit h R8 by issuing ping command sourced from 1.1.1.1 AfterissuingpingcommandonR1,issuedthedebug cryptoenginepacketcommandonR8tocheck incoming trafficcreatedwiththepingcommandon R1 to see if the incomingtrafficfromR1iscominginencryptedformor not.Toget into more detail,Ihave also used Wireshark Packet analyzertosniffdatathatisgoingoverServiceprovider network. Belowis the capture taken from Wireshark: Figure14: Wireshark capture showing t raffic from 1.1.1.1 to 8.8.8.8 using ESP. AbovecapturefromWiresharkshowsthatSourceand Destination IP addresses are hidden because we are using TunnelModeinIPSec.WithTunnelMode,originalIP addressgets hidden and Tunnel's Source and Destination IPaddressesareusedwhichisaadd-ontothenetwork security.Formoredetails,Ihavealsoextractedapacket using Wireshark from1.1.1.1 to 8.8.8.8 InternationalJournal of ComputerScienceTrendsand Technology(IJCST) Volume3 Issue 4,Jul-Aug 2015 ISSN: 2347-8578www.ijcstjournal.org Page 176 Figure 15: Specific ESP packet captured in Wireshark encrypt ing MPLS t raffic AboveFigureshowsthattrafficgeneratedfromCE1to CE2whenenteredServiceProviderMPLSbackbonealso encryptsMPLStrafficwithIPSec.ESPshowsencrypted dataunderthepayloadsection.Agraphshowing EncryptedandDecryptedtrafficbetween1.1.1.1and 8.8.8.8is shown below: Figure 16: Graph showing encrypted and decrypted packet s using IPSec. AbovegraphcreatedusingCiscoConfiguration Professionalisshowingthat1517packetshavebeen encrypted using IPSec and samenumbers of packets have been decrypted. WehaveusedIPSecwithLDP,butwithRSVP,wecan onlyuseRSVPAuthentication,whichprovidesdata integritywithHashingalgorithmslikeMD5orSHA-1, WehaveusedSHA-1inourtopologyandcapturethe packets using wireshark packet sniffer: Figure 17: RSVP packetcaptured from Wireshark wit h SHA-1 hashing used. VI.CONCLUSION&FUTURESCOPE LDPusedasadefaultlabeldistributionprotocol.Itis enabledautomaticallywhenweenableMPLS.Fortraffic engineering,RSVPand CR-LDP are used as they reserves theshareofbandwidthforsomeparticulartypeof traffic.Authenticationcanbeusedforsecuresharing betweenneighbordevices.CE-CEcommunicationcan be securedwiththehelpofIPsec.LDPusesbothTCPand UDPwhileCR-LDPusesTCPandRSVPusesRaw IP.LSPcanbeprotectedinLDPandCR-LDPbyusing IPsecbetweenPE-PE,whileRSVPusesSHA-1based neighbor authentication for secure sharing. LDP is the best solution when only data traffic is used betweensourceCEanddestinationCE,whileRSVP is the best traffic engineering solution. RSVPandLDPhasarefreshintervalforLSPwhile CR-LDPdoesnt have. MultiprotocolLabelSwitching (MPLS) is the backbone of theinternet.AlmostallserviceprovidersuseMPLSin theircorenetwork.PMNarendraModisDIGITAL INDIAmission has three basic components and those are Fibreoptic cable, MPLS. So improving the performance of MPLSprotocolswillleadtotheoverallimprovementof performanceof internet. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thispaperhasbeenmadepossiblethroughthe regularhardeffortandhelpsfromguideandmy family.IwouldliketothankAssociateProf.Er. Dinesh Kumar, for hisguidanceand help. REFRENCES [1]MultiprotocolLabelSwitchingArchitectureby E.RosenofCiscoSystems,A.Viswanathanof Force10Networks,andR.CallonofJuniper NetworksinInternetEngineeringTaskForce (IETF)RFC- 3031 [2] LDPSpecificationbyL.AndersonofNortel Networks,P.DoolanofEnnovateNetworks,N. FeldmanofIBMCorporation,A.Fredetteof PhotonExCorporationandB.ThomasofCisco Systems in IETFRFC- 3036 InternationalJournal of ComputerScienceTrendsand Technology(IJCST) Volume3 Issue 4,Jul-Aug 2015 ISSN: 2347-8578www.ijcstjournal.org Page 177 [3] FaultTolerancefortheLabelDistribution Protocol(LDP)byA.Farrel,Ed.ofMovaz Networks in IETFRFC3479 [4]PseudowireSetupandMaintenanceUsingthe LabelDistributionProtocol(LDP)byL. Martini,Ed., E. Rosen by Cisco Systems, N. El-AawarofLevel3Communications,T.Smithof Network Appliance Inc. and G. Heron of Tellabs in IETFRFC4447 [5] VirtualPrivateLANService(VPLS)Using LabelDistributionProtocol(LDP)Signalingby M.Lasserre,Ed.,V.Kompella,Ed.ofAlcatel Lucent in IETFRFC4762 [6]LDPSpecificationbyL.Anderson,Ed.,Acreo AB,I.Minie,Ed.ofJuniperNetworksandB. Thomas,EdofCiscoSystemsinIETFRFC 5036 [7] Constraint-BasedLSPSetupusingLDPby JamoussiofNortelNetworks,L.Anderson, UtforsAB,R.CallonofJuniperNetworks,R. DantuofNetrakeCorporation,L.WuofCisco Systems,P.DoolanofOTBConsulting Corporation,T.Worster,N.FeldmanofIBM Corporation, A. Fredette of ANF Consulting, M. GirishofAtogaSystems,E.Gray,Sandburst, J. HeinanenofSongNetworks,T.Kiltyof NewbridgeNetworksandA.MalisofVivace Networks in IETFRFC3212 [8]LSPModificationUsingCR-LDPbyJ.Ashof AT&T,Y.LeeofCeterusNetworks,P. Ashwood-Smith,B.Jamoussi,D.Fedyk,D. SkaleckiofNortelNetworks,L.LiofSS8 Networks in IETFRFC3214 [9] ResourceReSerVationProtocol(RSVP)byR. Braden,Ed.andS.BersonofISINetworks,L. ZhangofUCLA,S.HerzogofIBMResearch, andS.JaminofUniversityof Michigan in IETF RFC2205t [10] RSVPOperationOverIPTunnelsbyA.Terzis ofUCLA,J.KrawczykofArrowPoint Communications,J.WroclawskiofMITLCS, and L. Zhang of UCLAin IETFRFC2746 [11]RSVPCryptographicAuthentication by F. Baker ofCiscoSystems,B.LindellofUSC/ISI,and M. Talwarof Microsoft in IETFRFC2747 [12]SupportforResourceReservationProtocol TrafficEngineering(RSVP-TE)inLayer3 VirtualPrivateNetworks(L3VPNs)byK. Kumaki,Ed.andP.JiangofKDDICorporation, T.MuraiofFurukawaNetworkSolution Corporation,D. Cheng of Huawei Technologies, S.MatsushimaofSoftbankTelecominIETF RFC6882 [13]FastRerouteExtensionstoRSVP-TEforLSP TunnelsbyP.Pan,Ed.ofHammerhead Systems,G.Swallow, Ed. of Cisco Systems, and A.Atlas,Ed.ofAviciSystemsinIETFRFC 4090 [14]S.Veni,Dr.G.M.KadharNawazandP.Praba, PerformanceAnalysisofNetworkTraffic BehaviorinConventionalNetworkover MPLS,ProcofICCCCT2010IEEE InternationalConference,Nagercoil,Tamil Nadu, India, pp. 222-226,2010 [15]UnderstandingMPLSLDPSignalingProtocol- https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos12.1x47/topics/concept/mpls-security-ldp-signaling-protocol-understanding.html