See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269273172

Modeling and simulating MPLS networks

Conference Paper · June 2014

DOI: 10.1109/SNCC.2014.6866512

CITATIONS READS

2 663

1 author:

Azeddien Sllame
University of Tripoli
43 PUBLICATIONS 98 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Quality of Service through applying MPLS technology View project

Performance Evaluation of Multimedia over IP/MPLS and Wireless Networks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Azeddien Sllame on 09 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Modeling and Simulating MPLS Networks
Azeddien M. Sllame
Faculty of Information Technology
University of Tripoli
aziz239@yahoo.com
University Road 1, Tripoli, Libya
Abstract— This paper describes modeling and simulation
tools that are used to evaluate MPLS-based networks. The
first tool is GNS3 that could be used in designing and
modeling computer networks; while Wireshark can
enhance the protocols investigation process. The second
tool is OpenSimMPLS tool which enable the designers to
make the modeling and simulation process as an
interactive study. The third tool is the well-known OPNET
tool. However, using OPNET the VOIP application is
examined on MPLS network and then compared with
conventional IP/TCP network.
Keywords— MPLS, Modeling, Simulating, Networks, Routing.
I. INTRODUCTION
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is an evolving
technology that assures permanent and steady delivery of the
Internet services with high transmission speed and lower
delays. Due to lower network delay, efficient forwarding
technique, scalability and guaranteed performance of the
services provided by MPLS technology makes it as a one of
the effective implementations for backbone communication
and computer networks. Moreover, MPLS architecture
features traffic engineering and virtual private network (VPN)
capabilities that in turn provide a degree of a quality of service
(QOS) to the services it offers. MPLS forwarding technique is
based on attaching labels into IP packets. The labels are
inserted between the Layer 3 header and the Layer 2 header.
MPLS is a control plane driven protocol, i.e. the control
information exchange must be in place before the first data
packet can be forwarded. This made granular control over a
packet’s path in MPLS networks by referencing the incoming
labels to the label information base tables. In another hand,
modeling and simulation is widely used for development,
verification, proof expansions of the new or working network
designs, and transmission protocols because of the complexity
and the costs of practicing such systems in labs and real world.
Modeling is the process of producing a model; a model is a
presentation of the organization and working process of a
system. The model should be as close as possible to the real
system and easy to understand. Simulation complements the
modeling process and plays an important role in education and
design fields for efficient design understanding, exploration
and evaluation [1][2].
II. MPLS
MPLS integrates the performance and traffic management
of level layer 2 (L2) with the scalability and flexibility of
978-1-4799-5874-0/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
routing on layer 3 (L3). Therefore, it is seen as the protocol of
L2.5 level. Conventional routing is based on the exchange of
the information about the availability of the network, as
packet travels through the network; each router extracts the
information relevant to forwarding from L3 headers. This
information is then used to index the routing tables to
determine the next hop for the packet. This is repeated at each
router in the network. At each hop in the network, the optimal
forwarding packets must be reestablished. Normal IP packet
forwarding has several limitations; such as restricted ability to
work with the addressing information outside the destination
address that are carried in the packet and it may suffer from
other problems; such as difficulty of managing traffic. The
main concept of MPLS is to add labels in each packet. Based
on these labels the packet forwarding through the network is
done. However, the label summarizes essential information for
routing the packet through MPLS domain. Hence, MPLS is a
technology that accelerates and directs the flow of network
traffic and makes it easier to manage [2].
A. MPLS Terminology
In this section the main terms of MPLS technology are
described [1] [2]:
• MPLS domain: is a connecting set of nodes which make
use of MPLS routing forwarding and switching of traffic
flows through a network under a single administrative
domain. It is categorized into MPLS core routers which
named as Label Switch Routers (LSRs) and MPLS edge
routers that named as Label Edge Routers (LERs).
• LSR): it is in charge of forwarding the packets based on
label switching and it is located in the core of the MPLS
domain. LSR router is capable of layer 3 packets routing.
• LER: it is responsible for adding or removing the labels
to/from the packets when they enter/leave the MPLS
domain. LER is able to complete layer 3 routing.
However, always packet enters into MPLS domain across
LER which is called ingress router and leaves the MPLS
domain through LER that is called egress router.
• Label: a short fixed length identifier that is carried by a
packet inside MPLS domain and is used to classify the
stream of packets to certain forward equivalence class.
• Shim: a space in a packet between the layer 2 and layer 3
headers made in MPLS framework. A label is encoded in
the shim.
• Forward Equivalence Class (FEC): It is the set of packets
that have related characteristics and are forwarded with
the same class in the same path. This set of packets is
 given the same MPLS label. Each packet in MPLS
network is assigned with FEC only once at the ingress
router.
• Label Distribution Protocol (LDP): it is the main MPLS
signaling protocol in which the label mapping
information is exchanged between LSRs. It is responsible
in creating and taking care with labels.
• Label Switched path (LSP): LSP is the path constructed
by a sequence of routers and it originates at ingress router
and pass through one or more core LSRs and terminates
at egress router. A specific LSP is normally taken by
group of packets that have the same associated FEC with
that LSP. Multiple LSPs are available in any MPLS
domain and are established using LDP signaling protocol.
B. Difference between MPLS router and IP router
In networking data is constructed as a series of packets. All
the packets are routed through a chain of routers and multiple
networks to reach the destinations. In IP-based networks
router takes independent decision on each incoming packet;
i.e. IP-router forwards the packet to the next hop depending on
the destination address present in the packet layer 3’s header.
The process of forwarding the packets by the routers is
repeatedly done at each IP-router until the packet reaches the
destination. A key concept in MPLS is the separation of an IP
router’s functions into two parts: forwarding (data) plane and
control plane. This partitioning enables many applications to
be developed and set up in a flexible, scalable and reliable
way. The forwarding component is in charge of how data
packets are transmitted between IP routers, using label
swapping similar to ATM switching’s virtual path/virtual
channel identifier (VP/VCI). The control section involves
network layer routing protocols to hand out routing
information among routers, and label binding actions for
translating this routing information into the forwarding tables
required for label switching. Moreover, it retains and controls
the forwarding table by analyzing and understanding the
network topology structure from the routing protocols such as
OSPF, and BGP. However, in MPLS each router maintains a
label information table that get up-to-date information from
forwarding table, based on this forwarding table the
forwarding decision is made. Besides that, control plane is in
charge of creating the MPLS IP routing control by renewing
the label bindings which are exchanged between the routers.
As a result once a packet arrives at the router, the forwarding
decision is done by the forwarding part by checking the
forwarding table, which is maintained by control section. The
packets are then forwarded to the right node direction that is
determined by the forwarding decision [2] [4].
C. Label distribution protocol
LDP is a protocol that describes a set of processes and
messages that are used by any LSR routers in MPLS domain
to inform another LSR about the label bindings that it has
created. The LSR employs LDP protocol to create LSP over
the network by mapping network layer routing information
directly to data-link layer switched paths. These LSPs may
have an endpoint at a directly closest neighbor (like IP hop-
by-hop forwarding), or may have an endpoint at a network
egress node, facilitating switching through all intermediate
network nodes. However, FEC is associated with each LSP
created. This FEC specifies which packets are mapped to that
LSP. Moreover, any two LSRs that are using LDP to
exchange label mapping information are known as LDP peers
and they have an LDP session between them. An LDP
discovery mechanism enables an LSR to discover possible
LDP peers (i.e., other LSRs which are directly connected to
it)[2]. The LDP protocol provides four types of messages:
discovery, session, advertisement, and notification messages.
Therefore, using discovery messages, the LSRs announce
their presence in the network by sending Hello messages
periodically. This hello message is transmitted as a UDP
packet. When a new session must be established, the hello
message is sent over TCP to guarantee session creation. An
LDP session is set up between two directly connected LSRs to
take care about the exchange of LDP messages between them.
An LDP session between two LSRs is linked with a label
space. In addition, it is possible to set up an LDP session
between two non-directly connected LSRs. This can be
suitable when two distant LSRs might need to communicate
through an LSP. The two LSRs can establish a session in
order to transfer a label binding. This label can be pushed
down the label stack one after the other [1][2]. Therefore,
LDP is in control of founding and maintaining labels; then;
after the IP routing table process completion, MPLS labels are
assigned to individual entries in the IP routing table and sent
to neighboring MPLS devices via a LDP protocol to set up
LSP paths. However, this involves a processing at each LSR
to determine the next hop for the LSP using its IP routing
table then sending the label request to the next hop to establish
LSP path. This routine continues until the LSP reaches the
egress router in the MPLS domain, which will complete the
full LSP path [2].
III. MODELING AND SIMULATION TOOLS
Modeling and simulation of MPLS-based networks with
three tools; namely: GNS3, OpenSimMPLS and OPNET tools.
A. GNS3
GNS3 from Cisco is a modeling, simulation and
visualization tool. GNS3 delivers significant deep feedback
knowledge to network designers making them practically
explore different design aspects to meet design goals. This
tool has the advantages of encouraging students to do
independent projects and facilitate them to learn new
techniques by making detailed analytical processes to the
designs. GNS3 is can simulate networks with different wide
area networks (WAN) technologies such as ATM and MPLS.
GNS3 supports IOS routers, Ethernet switches and PIX
firewalls. Furthermore, using GNS3 many skills about
managing software tools are learned such as how to use virtual
machines and devices images during simulation process. In
addition, GNS3 can capture packets on a capture file for
further practice and analysis with Wireshark tool [6].
Figure (1): MPLS network case study topology (4 routers in
the middle creates MPLS domain)

The following is a sample of configuring MPLS protocol for

Figure (3): Snapshot of Wireshark: EIGRP and LDP messages
router R1 using GNS3:-
hostname R1
interface FastEthernet0/0
B. OpenSimMPLS
ip address 192.168.10.46 255.255.255.252 OpenSimMPLS simulator has been developed as
duplex auto multiplatform software at University of Extremadura in Spain
speed auto
mpls label protocol ldp [7]. It is licensed under the terms of General Public License
tag-switching mtu 1512 (GPL) [8]. It assists students to animatedly interact with the
tag-switching ip simulation; allows visual designing of scenes and guarantee of
The following is a sample of showing MPLS and LDP service technology simulation. In this paper an example
protocols configurations on the router R1 using GNS3:- showing the modeling and simulation power of the
R1#show mpls ldp neighbor
OpenSimMPLS tool to model, simulate and analysis of the
Peer LDP Ident: 192.168.10.45:0;
Local LDP Ident 192.168.10.46:0 MPLS-based networks is described. There is an ongoing-work
TCP connection: 192.168.10.45.646 - in our faculty to write a help file in English and Arabic for the
192.168.10.46.40899 simulator. Figure (4) shows the case study of the MPLS
State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 31/31;
Downstream Up time: 00:12:38
network designed by OpenSimMPLS tool. Furthermore, Table
LDP discovery sources: (1) lists the link timing between main switches and routers
FastEthernet0/0,Src IP addr: 192.168.10.45 links between main cites of western area of Libya state. Table
Addresses bound to peer LDP (2) shows size of the routers and switches buffer sizes and
Ident:192.168.10.9 192.168.10.45
192.168.10.42 192.168.10.6 corresponding switching power. However, Table (2) input by
However, some further investigation to GNS3 results using the designer to facilitate good design timing and can be
Wireshark tool can be seen in figures (2,3). Figure (2) shows adjusted to another values by the designer to eliminate/
the LDP messaging that is used for label exchange process, introduce the effect of node congestion. Moreover, figure (4)
while figure (3) describes EIGRP and LDP hello messages in illustrates LSP paths and their backup paths that are created by
MPLS domain. MPLS domain routers. In addition, figure (4) also shows the
status of the network links and provides the feature of
introducing link failure (the red dashed line) to see the process
of rerouting in the OpenSimMPLS simulator [8].
However, during the use of the OpenSimMPLS tool in
simulation course, different scene elements automatically
modify their visual appearance as the situation of that element
change (e.g. congestion or failure). For example, LER and
LSR nodes will change their color depending on their
congestion level. This is a measurement of the amount of
packets accumulated in the node buffer. Therefore,
OpenSimMPLS tool provides more detailed visual simulation
to MPLS networks, since the designer can see packets flow,
packets rerouting due to congestion or link failures, buffer
overflow making designers understand their network
Figure (2): Snapshot of Wireshark output analysis capabilities and show the events that take place during the
simulation period.
 Figure (5): Node congestion in the case study

Figure (4): OpenSimMPLS simulation scene space

Table (1): delay of the network links

Origin Link destination Link delay
Nalut Zuwara 1000 ns
Zuwara Alazezya 1000 ns
Alazezya Mslata 1001 ns
Mslata Baniwaled 1002 ns
Baniwaled Misrata 1000 ns
Misrata PC2 1000 ns

Table (2): Devices memory and buffering

Switches / routers if the design

Name Switching Buffer Size

Power Size DMGP

Zuwara 7680Mbps 768mb 4kb

ALzawya 10240 Mbps 1024Mb N/A
Tripoli 10240 Mbps 1024Mb 6kb
Nalut 7680Mbps 768mb N/A
ALazezya 10240 Mbps 1024Mb N/A Figure (6): Node packets analysis (green: MPLS; blue: IP; red: LDP)
Tarhona 10240 Mbps 1024Mb 7kb C. OPNET
Misrata 5120 Mbps 512Mb N/A OPNET Modeler is the industry’s leading simulator
Geryan 10240Mbps 1024Mb 5kb specialized for network research and development. It allows
Mslata 10240Mbps 1024Mb N/A designers to design and study the behavior of the
Bani Waled 7945Mbps 786Mb 4Kb communication networks, devices, protocols, and applications
with great flexibility. It provides a graphical editor interface to
build models for various network entities from physical layer
Therefore, simulation is an interactive environment and lots modulator to application processes. All the components are
of actions can be issued. For instance, node congestion can be modeled in an object-oriented approach which gives intuitive
caused by clicking on the node. After that, the node will suffer easy mapping to the real systems. It gives designers a flexible
great packets saturation see figure (5). If it continues receiving platform to test their new ideas and solutions with low cost [9].
incoming traffic surely will begin to discard packets in a short OPNET is a discrete event system simulator. It simulates
time. This function is very useful to cause packets losses and the system behavior by modeling each event happening in the
consequent packets retransmissions without having to wait the system and processes it by user-defined processes. It uses a
natural node congestion [7][8]. Moreover, each node could be hierarchical strategy to organize all the models to build a
easily further investigated by reading the trace file produced whole network. The hierarchy models entities from physical
or explore its analysis using analysis charts as seen in figure link transceivers, antennas, to CPU running processes to
(6). manage queues or running protocols, to devices modeled by
nodes with process modules and transceivers, to network
model that connects all different kinds of nodes together.
OPNET also provides programming tools to enable designers
define any type of packet format they want to use in tested
protocols. Programming in OPNET includes the following
major tasks: define protocol packet format, define the state
transition machine for processes running the protocol, define
process modules and transceiver modules that are needed in
each device node, finally define the network model by
connecting the device nodes together using user-defined link
models [9].
Figure (1) shows an MPLS network topology that has the
following configuration:
- Six router LERs (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 and R6) normal IP
routers with MPLS enabled feature;
- Four routers LSRs in the middle with light gray color
(MPLS_R1, MPLS_R3, MPLS_R3 and MPLS_R4);
- Two VOIP stations (VOIP_West and VOIP_East).
To evaluate the MPLS-based networks performance it is
necessary to compare it with normal IP network with the same
topology structure. Therefore, a simulation scenario is built
also with TCP/IP network by replacing MPLS (LSR) routers
by normal routers and disabling MPLS functions in LER Figure (8): VOIP Packet delay variation (Red for IP, Blue for
routers in figure (1) and enabling open shortest path first MPLS)
(OSPF) routing as IP-based routing. Furthermore, the
evaluation process is done using three different queuing
techniques; namely (FIFO, priority queuing (PQ), and
weighted fair queuing (WPQ)). The following performance
parameters are used to complete the evaluation process: (The
Delay (sec), traffic sent and received (packet/sec), traffic
Dropped (packet/sec), delay Jitter (sec), Packet delay variation,
and packet end-to-end delay (sec)) for each network with
different queuing mechanism. To analysis the MPLS
efficiency VOIP application is chosen, for that VOIP traffic
has been configured between Enterprise by using "create
traffic Flow" Option available in OPNET simulator. The
VOIP parameters are: call rate=500 calls/hour with using
G.711encoder, average call duration=300s (5 min) and voice
flow duration: 9000000s (25 min) for the experiment; and the
encoder scheme is interactive voice with delay, throughput Figure (9): VOIP Packet End-to-End delay (Red for IP, Blue
and reliability including overhead (bytes) of RTP/UDP/IP for MPLS)
protocols. The analysis results from figure (7) up to figure (13)
demonstrate different aspect of the simulation process to the
parameters mentioned above. The results clearly demonstrate
that huge VOIP data (simultaneous voice calls) are used and
results are conforms to the theoretical advantages of the
MPLS technology over the normal TCP/IP networks.

Figure (10): VOIP delay Jitter (sec) with PQ queuing (Red for
IP, Blue for MPLS)
Figure (7) Traffic sent/received (packet/sec) (Green: traffic
sent, Red: IP traffic received, Blue: MPLS traffic received)

Figure (11): VOIP Packet End-to-End delay using WFQ
queuing mechanism (Red for IP, Blue for MPLS)
Figure (12): Voice jitter (sec) for VOIP on the MPLS with
(FIFO, PQ, WFQ, custom) queuing
Figure (13): Voice jitter (sec) for VOIP on the TCP/IP with
(FIFO, PQ, WFQ, custom) queuing mechanisms
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The main goal of this paper is to show the different
capabilities of a three different modeling and simulation tools
in modeling and simulating MPLS-based networks.
View publication stats
The first tool is GNS3 which could be used in designing
and modeling computer networks especially those are using
CISCO devices. During the employing of GNS3 in modeling
MPLS network designs configuration need to be written and
further investigations need to be carried out using Wireshark
tool in order to visualize the results and do thorough analysis
to the topology and all protocols employed. Furthermore,
knowledge of VMware is required.
The second tool is OpenSimMPLS tool which enables the
designer to make the modeling and simulation process as an
interactive study. Using this tool; designers can see packets
flow, packets rerouting due to congestion or link failures,
buffer overflow and show the events that take place during the
simulation course step by step.
The third tool is the well-known standard tool OPNET.
However, using OPNET the VOIP application is investigated
on MPLS network and then compared with conventional
IP/TCP network. The experiment showed that MPLS
outperforms the ordinary TCP/IP networks due speed of the
routing inside the MPLS domain using the label switching
technique.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special thanks to the OpenSimMPLS simulator group at
the University of Extremadura in Spain whom allowed us to
use their tool to carry some parts of this paper work.
REFERENCES
[1] Rosen E., Viswanathan A., & Callon R.: Multiprotocol
Label Switching architecture, IETF RFC 3031, 2001,
61p
[2] Harry G. Perros: “Connection-oriented Networks
SONET/SDH, ATM, MPLS and OPTICAL
NETWORKS,” John Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK, 2005.
[3] James F. Kurose and Keith W. Ross: Computer
Networking: A Top-Down Approach Featuring the
Internet, 2012
[4] William Stallings: “Computer Networking with Internet
Protocols and Technology,” Prentice Hall (Pearson
Education), USA, 2004.
[5] John Evans and Clarence Filsfils: Deploying IP and
MPLS QOS for Multiservice Networks: Theory and
practice, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers is an imprint of
Elsevier, USA, 2007.
[6] GNS3-0.4 documentation (from www.gns3.net)
[7] OpenSimMPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
simulator (http://gitaca.unex.es/opensimmpls
[8] Dominguez-Dorado M., Rodriguez-Perez F. J.,
Gonzalez-Sanchez J. L., Marzo J. L., Gazo A.: “An
Architecture to provide Guarantee of Service (GoS) to
MPLS”, IV Workshop in G/MPLS Networks, April 2005.
[9] OPNET product documentation v.11.0.A, OPNET
Technologies, Inc., Bethesda, MD, 2004.