skip to main content
10.1145/3575882.3575884acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesic3inaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Preliminary Assessment of Using Spanning Tree Open Protocols in INA-CBT Communication System

Published:27 February 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The tsunami detection system on INA-CBT (Indonesia Cable Based Tsunameter) does not allow six minutes of downtime because it can affect the proper operation of the tsunami detection algorithm. The implementations of the INA-CBT at the Labuan Bajo and Rokatenda use a proprietary switching protocol for redundancy. In this work, simulation studies were carried out on the proposed model of INA-CBT network using open switching protocols for redundancy, spanning tree protocol (STP), and rapid spanning tree protocol (RSTP). Using open-protocols results in more flexible deployment in terms of device selection, thus reducing deployment costs. The simulation results show that failover takes 50 seconds of downtime on STP and 22 seconds on RSTP; that is, RSTP is 56% faster than STP. Moreover, failback results in 30 seconds of downtime on STP and 1 second on RSTP; that is, RSTP is 96.6% faster than STP. It indicates that open-protocol STP and RSTP still meet the INA-CBT’s requirements.

References

  1. 2004. IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks: Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges. IEEE Std 802.1D-2004 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.1D-1998) (2004), 1–281. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2004.94569Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. David Barnes and Basir Sakandar. 2005. Cisco LAN switching fundamentals. Cisco Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. O. Boebel, M. Busack, E. R. Flueh, V. Gouretski, H. Rohr, A. Macrander, A. Krabbenhoeft, M. Motz, and T. Radtke. 2010. The GITEWS ocean bottom sensor packages. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 10, 8 (2010), 1759–1780. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1759-2010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Antonio Capone, Daniele Corti, Luca Gianoli, and Brunilde Sansó. 2012. An optimization framework for the energy management of carrier ethernet networks with Multiple Spanning Trees. Computer Networks 56, 17 (2012), 3666–3681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2012.08.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Swati Dhir and Sanjay Dhir. 2007. Adoption of open-source software versus proprietary software: An exploratory study. Strategic Change 26, 4 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Muhammad Iqbal, Bondan Suwandi, Mery Diana, Mustika Fitriana Dewi, Fito Wigunanto Herminawan, Rifqi Fajar Giyana, Sakinah Puspa Anggraeni, Muhammad Yusha Firdaus, Yoga Prastiya Wibawa, Toto Bachtiar Palokoto, Ryan Prasetya Utama, Fajar Adi Marianto, Maratul Hamidah, Sasono Rahardjo, Edhi Purnomo, and Wayan Wira Yogantara. 2021. Performance Analysis of Indonesia Cable Based Tsunameter (INA-CBT) Rokatenda Ring Topology. In 2021 IEEE Ocean Engineering Technology and Innovation Conference: Ocean Observation, Technology and Innovation in Support of Ocean Decade of Science (OETIC). 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/OETIC53770.2021.9733745Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Madhusanka Liyanage, Mika Ylianttila, and Andrei Gurtov. 2014. A novel distributed spanning tree protocol for provider provisioned VPLS networks. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). IEEE, 2982–2988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Edoardo Longo, Alessandro E.C. Redondi, Matteo Cesana, Andrés Arcia-Moret, and Pietro Manzoni. 2020. MQTT-ST: a Spanning Tree Protocol for Distributed MQTT Brokers. In ICC 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC40277.2020.9149046Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Burak Martonalti. 2012. NEPTSim: simulating NEPTUNE Canada using OMNeT++. Ph. D. Dissertation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Amitabh Mishra, Raj Jain, and Arjan Durresi. 2012. Cloud computing: networking and communication challenges. IEEE Communications Magazine 50, 9 (2012), 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2012.6295707Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Vijay Nunia and Ramesh C. Poonia. 2018. Fast and Efficient Recovery of Root Node Failure in Spanning Tree Routing Protocol. Recent Patents on Computer Science 11 (2018), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.2174/2213275911666180907145304Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Maryam Pahlevan and Roman Obermaisser. 2018. Redundancy Management for Safety-Critical Applications with Time Sensitive Networking. In 2018 28th International Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference (ITNAC). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ATNAC.2018.8615374Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. D. M. Premod, K. S. Arun Kumar, K. Shamju Joseph, B. K. Praveen Kumar, G. Miny, and V. S. Shenoi. 2013. Network design for submarine sonar systems. In 2013 Ocean Electronics (SYMPOL). 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/SYMPOL.2013.6701937Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tiodora Hadumaon Siagian, Purhadi Purhadi, Suhartono Suhartono, and Hamonangan Ritonga. 2014. Social vulnerability to natural hazards in Indonesia: driving factors and policy implications. Natural hazards 70, 2 (2014), 1603–1617.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Tianjiao Wang, Xinyu Wang, Zengfu Wang, Chao Guo, Bill Moran, and Moshe Zukerman. 2021. Optimal Tree Topology for a Submarine Cable Network With Constrained Internodal Latency. Journal of Lightwave Technology 39, 9 (2021), 2673–2683. https://doi.org/10.1109/JLT.2021.3057171Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Peter Willis and Nirmala Shenoy. 2019. A Meshed Tree Protocol for Loop Avoidance in Switched Networks. In 2019 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC). 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCNC.2019.8685664Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Preliminary Assessment of Using Spanning Tree Open Protocols in INA-CBT Communication System

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          IC3INA '22: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Computer, Control, Informatics and Its Applications
          November 2022
          415 pages
          ISBN:9781450397902
          DOI:10.1145/3575882

          Copyright © 2022 ACM

          © 2022 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 27 February 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format