Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An approach to support traffic engineering in IPv6 networks based on IPv6 facilities

  • Published:
Telecommunication Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

IPv6 is an Internet protocol with the ability to provide a large number of addresses to allow the connectivity of each existing thing to the global network. It also allows the deployment of many technologies and services of the next generation. One of the major changes that occurred in the IP header with this new version is the addition of the IPv6 flow label field, which was created with the intention of labeling packets that belong to a particular flow to provide an appropriate treatment by routers. However, this field has not been widely exploited yet, and it is being set to zero in almost all IPv6 packets. The main Internet routing problem is that said routing is based on the shortest path algorithm, which leads to the possibility of some paths being congested while others are underused. To solve the congestion problem, many solutions aiming at traffic engineering support have been proposed, but this topic remains an open issue. This paper describes a new solution to support traffic engineering based on the usage of the IPv6 flow label for providing fast packet switching, which we have called PSA-TE6. In this document, we present the PSA-TE6 operation and evaluation regarding the label space reduction, label stacking cost and its minimization. The results show that PSA-TE6 is cheaper compared to the IP/MPLS solution when there is no label stacking, and that PSA-TE6 also outperforms IP/MPLS when the stacking is enabled until achieving a 40% presence of tunnels for encapsulation levels greater than 1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Postel, J. (1981). Internet protocol. IETF RFC791.

  2. Deering, S., & Hinden, R. (1998). Internet protocol, version 6 (IPv6) specification. IETF RFC2460.

  3. Deering, S., & Hinden, R. (2017). Internet protocol, version 6 (IPv6) specification. IETF RFC8200.

  4. Dhamdhere, A., Luckie, M., & Huffaker, B. (2012). Measuring the deployment of IPv6: Topology, routing, and performance. In Proceedings of the ACM internet measurement conference (pp. 537–550).

  5. Czyz, J., Allman, M., Zhang, J., Iekel-Johnson, S., Osterweil, E., & Bailey, M. (2014). Measuring IPv6 adoption. In Proceedings of 2014 ACM conference on SIGCOMM (Vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 87–98).

  6. Nikkhah, M., & Guérin, R. (2016). Migrating the internet to IPv6: An exploration of the when and why. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 24(4), 2291–2304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hu, Q., & Carpenter, B. (2011). Survey of proposed use cases for the IPv6 flow label. IETF RFC6294.

  8. Becerra, L. Y., & Padilla, J. J. (2014). Review of approaches for the use of the flow label of IPv6 header. IEEE Transactions Latin America, 12(8), 1602–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., & Callon, R. (2001). Multiprotocol label switching architecture. IETF RFC3031.

  10. Hinden, R. (1994). Simple internet protocol plus white paper. IETF RFC1710.

  11. Deering, S., & Hinden, R. (1995). Internet protocol, version 6 (IPv6) specification. IETF RFC1883.

  12. Metzler, J., & Hauth, S. (2000). An end-to-end usage of the IPv6 flow label. Work Prog.

  13. Conta, A., & Carpenter, B. (2001). A proposal for the IPv6 flow label specification. IETF internet-draft.

  14. Conta, A., & Rajahalme, J. (2001). A model for Diffserv use of the IPv6 flow label specification. Work Prog.

  15. Hagino, J. (2001). Socket API for IPv6 flow label field. IETF internet-draft.

  16. Rajahalme, J., Conta, A., Carpenter, B., & Deering, S. (2004). IPv6 flow label specification. IETF RFC3697.

  17. Amante, S., Carpenter, B., & Jiang, S. (2011). Rationale for update to the IPv6 flow label specification. IETF RFC6436.

  18. Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., & Rajahalme, J. (2011). Ipv6 flow label specification. IETF RFC6437.

  19. Chakravorty, S. (2008). Challenges of IPv6 flow label implementation. In Proceedings of IEEE MILCOM2008.

  20. Chakravorty, S., Bush, J., & Bound, J. (2008). IPv6 label switching architecture. Work Prog.

  21. Beckman, M. (2007). IPv6 dynamic flow label switching (FLS). IETF internet-draft.

  22. Nichols, K., Blake, B., Baker, F., & Black, D. (1998). Definition of the differentiated services field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 headers. IETF RFC2474.

  23. Roberts, L.,& Harford, J. (2005). In-band QoS signaling for IPv6. Work Prog.

  24. Chin-Ling, C. (2011). A study of IPv6 labeling forwarding model supporting Diffserv. Procedia Engineer Science Elsevier, 15, 5590–5594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Banerjee, R., Malhotra, S. P., & Mahaveer, M. (2002). A modified specification for use of the IPv6 flow label for providing an efficient quality of service using a hybrid approach. Work Prog.

  26. Lin, C., Tseng, P., & Hwang, W. (2006). End-to-end QoS provisioning by flow label in IPv6. In ICIS.

  27. Lee, I., & Kim, S. (2004). A QoS improvement scheme for real-time traffic using IPv6 flow labels. In Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3043).

  28. Prakash, B. (2004). Using the 20 bit flow label field in the IPv6 header to indicate desirable quality of service on the internet. University of Colorado (MSc Thesis).

  29. Aazam, M., Syed, A. M., & Huh, E.-N. (2013). Redefining flow label in IPv6 and MPLS headers for end to end QoS in virtual networking for thin client no title. In 19th Asia-Pacific conference on communications. (APCC), Bali—Indones (pp. 585–590). https://doi.org/10.1109/apcc.2013.6766016.

  30. Hassan, R., & Jabbar, R. (2017). End-to-end (e2e) quality of service (QoS) for IPv6 video streaming. In IEEE 19th international conference on advanced communication technology (ICACT).

  31. Glennan, T., Leckie, C., & Erfani, S. M. (2016). Improved classification of known and unknown network traffic flows using semi-supervised machine learning. In Australasian conference on information security and privacy (pp. 493–501). Springer.

  32. Yin, A., & Zhang, S. (2015). Design and implementation of trusted routing strategy based on IPv6 flow identification. In 10th international conference on communications and networking in China (ChinaCom) (pp. 887–892).

  33. Padilla, J., & Paradells, J. (2007). Intserv6: An approach to support QoS over IPv6 wired and wireless networks. European Transactions on Telecommunications, 19(6), 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Padilla, J. J., Paradells, J., & Rodriguez, A. (2006). Supporting QoS over IPv6 wireless networks with IntServ6. In IEEE 17th international symposium on personal, indoor and mobile radio communications (pp. 1–6).

  35. Doan, H., et al. (2006). Flow-based forwarding scheme and performance analysis in mobile IPv6 networks. In International conference of advanced communications technology (Vol. 3, pp. 1490–1496).

  36. Zheng, T., Wang, L., & Gu, D. (2012). A flow label based QoS scheme for end-to-end mobile services. In ICNS 2012-Ehte eighth international conference on networking and services (pp. 169–174).

  37. Ouellette, S., & Pierre, S. (2006). HPMRSVP-TE: A hierarchical proxy mobile resource reservation protocol for traffic engineering. In IEEE 64th vehicular technology conference 2006 (pp. 1–5).

  38. Yee,T. W., Eng, T. Ch., & Ping, L. S. (2012). Towards utilizing flow label IPv6 in implicit source routing for dynamic source routing (DSR) in wireless ad hoc network. In IEEE Symposium on computers and informatics (pp. 101–106).

  39. Donley, C., & Erichsen, K. (2011). Using the flow label with dual-stack lite. Work Prog.

  40. Carpenter, B., & Amante, S. (2011). Using the IPv6 flow label for equal cost multipath routing and link aggregation in tunnels. IETF RFC6438.

  41. Hartmond, F., Rouhi, M., &Scholz, D. (2017). Detecting load balancers in the Internet. In Proceedings of the seminars future internet (FI) and innovative internet technologies and mobile communication (IITM) focal topic: Advanced persistent threats. Munich, Germany (pp. 17–23).

  42. Braden, R., Clark, D., & Shenke, S. (1994). Integrated services in the internet architecture: An overview. IETF RFC1633.

  43. Melnikov, D. A., Lavrukhin, Y. N., Durakovsky, A. P., Gorbatov, V. S., & Petrov, V. R. (2015). Access control mechanism based on entity authentication with IPv6 header ‘flow label’ field. In 3rd international conference on future internet of things and cloud (pp. 158–164).

  44. Blake, S. (2009). Use of the IPv6 flow label as a transport-layer nonce to defend against off-path spoofing attacks. Work Prog.

  45. Hendriks, L., Velan, P., Schmidt, R. de O., de Boer, P. T., & Pras, A. (2017). Flow-based detection of ipv6-specific network layer attacks. In IFIP international conference on autonomous infrastructure, management and security. AIMS 2017: Security of networks and services in an all-connected world (pp. 137–142).

  46. Bobade, S., & Goudar, R. (2015). Secure data communication using protocol steganography in IPv6. In International conference on computing communication control and automation (pp. 275–279).

  47. Awduche, D., et al. (2002). Overview and principles of internet traffic engineering. IETF RFC3272.

  48. Becerra, L. Y., & Padilla, J. J. (2012). Study of proposals for supporting internet traffic engineering. Entre Ciencia e Ingeniería, 6(11), 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Fortz, B., & Thorup, M. (2000). Internet traffic engineering by optimizing OSPF weights. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM (pp. 519–528).

  50. Fortz, B., Rexford, J., & Thorup, M. (2002). Traffic engineering with traditional IP routing protocols. IEEE Communications Magazine, 40(10), 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Thorup, M., & Fortz, B. (2002). Optimizing OSPF/IS-IS weights in a changing world. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 20(4), 756–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ericsson, M., Resende, M., & Pardalos, P. (2002). A genetic algorithm for the weight setting problem in OSPF routing. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 6(3), 299–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gojmerac, I., Ziegler, T., Ricciato, F., & Reichl, P. (2003). Adaptive multipath routing for dynamic traffic engineering. In Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM (pp. 3058–3062).

  54. Wang, J., et al. (2005). Edge based traffic engineering for OSPF networks. Computer Networks, 48(4), 605–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Abrahamsson, H., & Bjorkman, M. (2009). Robust traffic engineering using L-balanced weight-settings in OSPF/IS-IS. In Broadband communications, networks, and systems BROADNETS. Sixth international conference (pp. 1–8).

  56. Xu, K., Liu, H., Liu, J., & Shen, M. (2011). One more wight is enough: Toward the optimal traffic engineering with OSPF. In IEEE Computer Society 31st international conference on distributed computing systems (pp. 836–846).

  57. Xu, K., Shen, M., Liu, H., Liu, J., Li, F., & Li, T. (2016). Achieving optimal traffic engineering using a generalized routing framework. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 27(1), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Awduch, D., et al. (1999). Requirements for traffic engineering over MPLS. IETF RFC2702.

  59. Awduche, D. (1999). MPLS and traffic engineering in IP networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 37(12), 42–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Karaman, A. (2006). Constraint-based routing in traffic engineering. In Computer networks (pp. 49–54).

  61. Nayak, P., & Murty, G. R. (2013). Survey on constrained based path selection QoS routing algortihms: MCP and MCOP Problems. Journal of Information Systems and Communication, 4(1), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., & Lewis, D. (2013). The locator/ID separation protocol (LISP). IETF RFC6830.

  63. Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., & Lahiri, P. (2016). LISP traffic engineering use-cases. draft-farinacci-lisp-te-11.

  64. Saucez, D., Donnet, B., Iannone, L., & Bonaventure, O. (2008). Interdomain traffic engineering in a locator/identifier separation Context. In IEEE internet network management workshop.

  65. Li, K., Wang, S., & Wang, X. (2011). Edge router selection and traffic engineering in LISP-capable networks. IEEE Journal of Communications and Networks, 13(6), 612–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Li, K., Wang, S., Xu, S., & Wang. (2011). ERMAO: An enhanced intradomain traffic engineering approach in LISP-capable Networks. In IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference—GLOBECOM.

  67. Herrmann, D., Turba, M., Kuijper, A., & Schweizer, I. (2014). Inbound interdomain traffic engineering with LISP. In 39th annual IEEE conference on local computer networks (pp. 458–461).

  68. Jeong, T., Liy, J., Hyun, J., Yoo, J.-H., & Hong, J. W.-K. (2015). Experience on the development of LISP-enabled services: An ISP perspective. In Proceedings of the 2015 1st IEEE conference on network softwarization (pp. 1–9).

  69. Nguyen, H. D. D., & Secci, S. (2016). LISP-EC: Enhancing LISP with egress control. In IEEE conference on standards for communications and networking.

  70. Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S. & Shakir, R. (2017). Segment routing architecture. draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11.

  71. Filsfils, C., et al. (2017). Segment routing policy for traffic engineering. raft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-00.

  72. Bhatia, R., Hao, F., Kodialam, M., & Lakshman, T. V. (2015). Optimized network traffic engineering using segment routing. In IEEE conference on computer communications.

  73. Rabah, G., Olivier, D., Samer, L., & Texier, G. (2016). Label encoding algorithm for MPLS segment routing. In IEEE international symposium on network computing and application (pp. 113–117).

  74. Salsano, S., Siracusano, G., Luca, V., Luca, D. and Pier, L. (2016). PSMR-poor man’s segment routing, a minimalistic approach to segment routing and a traffic engineering use case. In Network operations and management Symposium (pp. 598–604).

  75. Moreno, E., Beghelli, A., & Cugini, F. (2017). Traffic engineering in segment routing networks. Computer Networks, 114, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Balbinot, L., de Andrade, M., Tarouco, L., & Roesler, V. (2002). IP next generation label switching. In IEEE Workshop on IP operations and management (pp. 21–25).

  77. Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., & Lindem, A. (2008). Traffic engineering extensions to OSPF version 3. IETF RFC5329.

  78. Awduche, D. et al., (2001). RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP tunnels. IETF RFC3209.

  79. Younis, O., & Fahmy, S. (2003). Constraint-based routing in the internet: Basic principles and recent research. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 5(1), 2–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Becerra, L. Y., Padilla, J. J., & Bañol, J. L. (2017). A survey on constraints-based routing algorithms: objectives traffic engineering and quality of service. Revista Entre Ciencia e Ingeniería, 21, 112–122.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Medhi, D., & Ramasay, K. (2007). Network routing-algorithms, protocols and architectures (pp. 166–191). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Davie, B. S., & Farrel, A. (2008). MPLS: Next steps. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Conta, A., & Deering, S. (1998). Generic packet tunneling in IPv6 specification. IETF RFC2473.

  84. Mathworks. (1994). Retrieved June 8, 2016 from https://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html.

  85. Cerrutti, I., & Castoldi, P. (2006). Influence of label stack depth on the performance of MPLS networks. In IEEE Globecom (pp. 1–5).

  86. Vanaubel, Y., Mérindol, P., Pansiot, J.-J., & Donnet, B. (2016). A brief history of MPLS usage in IPv6. In International conference on passive and active measurement link (pp. 359–370).

  87. AMPL Optimization Inc. (2013). AMPL. Retrieved May 15, 2016 from http://ampl.com.

  88. CPLEX for AMPL. (2013). Retrieved May 20, 2016 from https://ampl.com/products/solvers/solvers-we-sell/cplex/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Católica de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia

    Line Y. Becerra Sánchez

  2. Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Bucaramanga, Colombia

    Jhon J. Padilla Aguilar

Authors
  1. Line Y. Becerra Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jhon J. Padilla Aguilar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Line Y. Becerra Sánchez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Becerra Sánchez, L.Y., Padilla Aguilar, J.J. An approach to support traffic engineering in IPv6 networks based on IPv6 facilities. Telecommun Syst 72, 11–27 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-018-00543-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-018-00543-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation