Implementing OSPFv3 in IPv6 Network

Download PDF
0 downloads 0 Views 593KB Size Report
Comment
As transition to IPv6 will happen very soon, thus migration to Ipv6 should be planned ... OSPFv3 doesn't require Network Mask to from adjacency, as adjacency is .... converges faster compared to RIP. after applying access list on edge routers ...
Implementing OSPFv3 in IPv6 Network Sheikh Raashid Javid

Sanjay Kumar Dubey

CSE Department Amity University Uttar Pradesh Sec-125, Noida, India [email protected]

CSE Department Amity University Uttar Pradesh Sec-125, Noida, India [email protected]

Abstract—This paper will focus on introduction to OSPF, various features added to IPv6 and implementation of OSPFv3 in IPv6 network using Cisco Packet Tracer. As transition to IPv6 will happen very soon, thus migration to Ipv6 should be planned properly to take advantage of various features of Ipv6, also compared to IPv4 routing protocols, IPv6 routing protocols have not been tested much, how would IPv6 routing protocols respond to route failures, when do routers reach to convergence in IPv6 networks, how is link-state database created and shared in OSPFv3, how much bandwidth is utilized by this protocol, how faster the routing decisions are and what is the size of routing protocol etc. This once migrated to IPv6, OSPFv3 will be first choice among various IPv6 routing protocols, because of its various excellent features and large networks can also make best use of the hierarchical nature and scalability of this routing protocol. Keywords—OSPF, IPV4, IPv6, OSPFv3, Area, Network, Router.

I.

INTRODUCTION

As the number of devices connecting to internet increase day-by-day, which results in depletion of IPv4 address space, thus the transition to IPv6 will happen very soon in near future. As IPv6 routing protocols have not yet been tested thoroughly compared to IPv6 routing protocols. Among various IPv6 routing protocols like RIPng, EIGRPv6, IS_IS, OSPFv3 etc it has been analyzed that OSPFv3 protocol has various advantages like open standard, better overall performance, low packet loss ratio, reaches to convergence faster, better in cost of transmission and throughput, less bandwidth utilization etc. This once migrated to IPv6; OSPFv3 will be the first choice of internet protocol, because of its many excellent routing capabilities like small header, same interface can be configured with multiple addresses, IPv6 addresses in OSPFv3 are located within the payload rather than the packet header. OSPFv2 uses MD5 for authentication, but OSPFv3 uses the services of IPSec. OSPFv3 doesn’t require Network Mask to from adjacency, as adjacency is formed on link local. IPv6 addresses are not send through LSA’s. Also OSPFv3 supports Unicast, Multicast and Anycast features and there is no support for the high bandwith consuming and less efficient broadcast. The main objective of including Anycast is for faster communication, where the packets are delivered to the nearest device. This paper is divided in to 5 sections, Section 1 begins with related

work done by various authors to measure performance of OSPFv3, OSPF is covered in brief in Section 2, Section 3 discusses various features added to IPv6, and Implementing OSPFv3 in IPv6 network using Cisco Packet Tracer is briefly covered in Section 5. II.

RELATED WORK

Various comparisons of ipv4 and ipv6 has been studied and analyzed by researchers. Richard John Whitfield and Shao Ying Zhu et al. [1] analyzed performance of OSPFv3 and EIGRPv6 when implementing their security measures by designing two scenarios connecting routers directly in scenario 1 and through a switch in scenario 2. The findings of their research were that Start up time for EIGRPv6 is faster than OSPFv3 and OSPFv3 starts up faster in LAN environment and under security measures. Whereas IPSec encryption improved the performance of OSPFv3, S.Kamalakannan, S.Venkatesh and M.Mohan et al. [2] have investigated behavior of routing convergence to conclude that RIPng, makes use of IPSec for authentication, and uses multicast address and concluded that Hop limit of 15 in RIP, limits the size of the network and has slow convergence, but OSPF has low packet loss ratio and reaches to convergence faster when compared with RIP. V.Vetriselvan, Pravin R. Patil, and M.Mahendran et al. [3] studied the performance evaluation of RIP, OSPF and EIGRP to find that RIP is quick and accurate in a small or middle network, and has minimum overhead minimum link utilization, OSPF has least cost of transmission, maximum throughput. EIGRP has least queuing delay. Mustafa Elgili Mustafa et al. [4] studied the comparison of OSPFv3 with OSPFv2 and reached to the conclusion that authentication has been removed from OSPF header, OSPFv3 relies on authentication of IPv6, OSPFv3 doesn’t require Network Mask to from adjacency, as adjacency is formed on link local, Hello packet sent by OSPFv3 has low overhead and Link state update (Multicast) Traffic sent by OSPFv3 is lower when compared with OSPFv2. ` Jagmeet Kaur and Prabhdeep et al. [5] have done the comparative study of by designing three scenarios: OSPFv3 IS-IS, OSPFv3_IS-IS and concluded that in Jitter, OSPFv3 has better performance. In Video delay, IS-IS has better performance and in Voice delay, OSPFv3_IS-IS has better performance also in future, research work can be conducted on other servers like remote login, telnet, database query response time and security analysis can be done for both ospfv3 and IS-

IS. Rajneesh Narula and Pallavi Aggarwal et al [6] conducted research on performance evaluation of RIP and OSPF in IPv6 by designing three scenarios: OSPFv3, RIPng, OSPFv3_RIPng and their findings are Analysis of database Query response, page response and object response time in HTTP, IPv6 traffic dropped, jitter, end to end delay, traffic received and sent in voice, variation of Packet delay, end to end delay, traffic received and sent in video conferencing. They reached to conclusion that in case of individual routing protocol performance, overall performance of ospfv3 is better than RIPng. Sunjian and Yin YAFang et al. [7] presented a research paper Conference on research and implementing OSPFv3 in IPv6 using Dynamips Simulator, there are three areas containing four routers, to find. Once migrated to IPv6, main routing protocol to be used because of its various unique features and several advantages. Chandra Wijaya et al [8] presented research paper in IEEE Computer Society Conference on performance analysis EIGRP, OSPF in IPv4 and IPv6, the findings of this paper are that analysis of Routing Table, Metric, Packet Loss, Shortest Route, and Packet is observed, EIGRP packets have smaller size, sends smaller number of packets, and has low packet loss when compared to OSPF, but EIGRP is a Cisco Proprietary Protocol which can’t be utilized by Routers from other vendors. Amer Nizar Abu Ali et al [9] analyzed the comparison between IPv4 & IPv6 and demonstrated the two tunnels used to migrate from IPv4 to IPv6, when to migrate and the various risks involved in migrating from IPv4 to IPv6. A Dhamdhere, M Luckie, B Huffaker et al [10] did survey on deploying IPv6 and measuring the performance of Routing Protocol, and found that there is lot of research happening in configuration and implementation of IPv6, Fatima A. Hamza, Amr M. Mohamed et al [11] compared performance of RIP and OSPF and concluded that OSPF has better average through-put and less packet delay as compared to RIP, while varying the network size also OSPF has better link adjustment capability and network coverage when compared with RIP. P Wu, Y Cui, J Wu, J Liu and C Metz et al [12] did survey on Transition from Ipv4 to Ipv6 to find that systematic and quantitative performance analysis should be carried out first before the transition techniques can be applied to a large scale deployment. Shah A and Waqas J. Rana et al [13] analysed the performance of RIP and OSPF using OPNET to conclude that OSPF multi area and OSPF multi-stub area have less convergence time as compared to OSPF single further OSPF converges faster compared to RIP. after applying access list on edge routers, EIGRP and RIP are fully converged and full connectivity is established also whexn RIP and EIGRP are mutually redistributed into each other, potential routing loops and insufficient route tables are observed because of administrative distance. the additional features and advantages of IPv6 also the reasons and benefits of migration from IPv4 to IPv6 are analyzed in brief. Atul Aggarwal, Shelej Khera [14] have done research by configuring stub-area, totallystubby areas and route summarization using OPNET to reduce the size of link-state database and concluded that by doing such configurations, the size of link state database can be

reduced and processing overhead can also be reduced to a great extent to allow large OSPF networks to exist even if their routers are not that powerful and to avoid routing path failures even if topology changes are happening frequently and also multiple times. Pallavi Aggarwal [15] has done comparison on RIP and OSPF in IPv6 Network and concluded that EIGRP packets have smaller size, sends smaller number of packets, and has low packet loss when compared to OSPF, but EIGRP is a Cisco Proprietary Protocol which can’t be utilized by Routers from other vendors. A Hinds, A Atojoko and S Ying Zhu [16] studied the Comparison of OSPF and EIGRP against a number of criteria to find that when used in bigger networks, the hierarchical nature of OSPF gives it an advantage over EIGRP, when used with properly the areas which are nicely configured to limit overhead which is caused by routing, OSPFv3 will be the mostly used in large networks which take the benefit from its hierarchical nature and benefit from its scalability. Chen Haihong and Sun Xiaoling [17] presented a research paper in International Conference to find that Convergence activities of OSPFv3 are basically the same as OSPFv2, OSPFv3 Router link LSA is only 83% of OSPFv2. Run time and memory usage of both OSPFv3 and OSPFv2 is same, OSPFv3 can also support in a single link running multiple protocol instances thus when the IPv6 massively applies in the global scope, and OSPFv3 will be the first choice to be used as an interior gateway protocol. III.

OSPF (OPEN SHORTEST PATH FIRST VERSION 2)

The biggest advantage of using OSPF is that it is an open standard protocol, using Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm to find the shortest, best and optimum path to each and every remote destination network. The routers using this protocol reach to convergence faster and it also support multiple routes to same destination having equal cost for to make the routing process faster and balancing the load equally on various paths. OSPF divides single large area into multiple small areas, and each area is connected to backbone area either directly through physical connection or indirectly using virtual link or logical link. The advantage of having multiple areas is to reduce routing update traffic and conserve bandwidth. Another important feature of OPSF is that is supports both IPv4 and IPv6. Routing table is shared with only those neighbors’ who have established adjacency. Routers which are in same area have same area ID, as various interfaces of a router can be in multiple areas, thus separate area ID is associated with each interface of the router, and also a separate tree is calculated for each interface with respect to its area. To decide a best path, OSPF uses cost as metric, thus the path having lowest cost has highest priority. DR and BDR are selected for each area to minimize routing updates and Hello packets are send periodically to find out neighbors, establish adjacencies, maintain relationship with neighbors. LSA packets, containing link state data, are flooded to neighbors to create network topology map. SPF algorithm is then used by all the routers to calculate the shortest and best path to each remote destination network within an area from the topology table received from all the neighbors. Process ID groups OSPF commands under separate

process, has local value from 1 to 65535. Area Id indicates an area to which an interface belongs to and different interfaces of the same router can belong to different areas at the same time. Wildcard mask is used to filter the networks that can be configured with OSPF. As the 0 in the wildcard mask indicates to match all the bits properly and 255 means not to match any bit or don’t care.

allows multiple addresses for various networks and hosts and supports multicast, unicast as well as anycast. IPv6 is 128 bit hexadecimal, broken into three parts Global Prefix, Subnet and Interface ID. A large IPv6 address having many zeros can be shortened by dropping leading zeros and replacing two continuous blocks of zeros with a double colon only once even if there are multiple blocks of zeros.

Fig.1. OSPF Configuration in IPv4 Network

IV.

IPV6 (INTERNET PROTOCOL VERSION 6)

IPv6 is also being named as the next generation internet protocol which not only provide enough or abundant address space but has many advantages and features to meet the various requirements or demands of today’s networks. As the no of devices getting connected to internet increase day-by-day, thus there is a need of large address space. Thus IPv6 not only has large address space but comes bundled with various features like IPSec which provides security feature from one end to another end, smaller header size- which results in high processing speed and efficient routing decisions. Further IPv6

Fig.2. IPv6 Configuration

A. Address Types: Unicast Address: In Unicast Address, Packets addressed to a destination host are delivered to a single interface. Global Unicast Address: Publically routable addresses which are unique globally Link Local Address: It is like APIPA Address used in IPv4 routing protocol and is non routable. Unique-Local Address: Non routable, globally unique, designed to replace site local addresses used in IPv4 routing protocols. Multicast Address: One-to-many address Anycast Address: This feature allows the same address to be given to more than one device, thus when message is sent to the device, it is goes to the nearest device that has the same address and is also known as One-to-nearest address.

contain IPv6 addresses but in OSPFv2, LSA’s contain IPv6 addresses. Further OSPFv3 Router link LSA is only 83% of OSPFv2. In OSPFv3 a router ID should be configured before routing process can begin. DR and BDR routers are known by their router ID’s but in OSPFv2, routers are known by IP addresses. In OSPFv3 there is no authentication, as OSPFv3 relies on authentication of IPv6 but OSPFv2 uses MD5 for authentication, and OSPFv3 uses the services of IPSec. Hello packet sent by OSPFv3 has low overhead compared to OSPFv2. OSPFv3 send low Link state update traffic when compared with OSPFv2, which sends more link state update traffic, thus consumes more bandwidth. OSPFv3 also performs better for End to end delay, traffic received and traffic sent in video conferencing Response time in Data base query. VI.

A. Stateless Auto Configuration It allows devices to assign address to themselves both with a link-local unicast address also with a global unicast address. Firstly, host sends Router Solicitation (RS) request to a router as a multicast asking for prefix information to configure its interface. Router replies with the information through Router Advertisement (RA).

OSPFV3 IN IPV6

Packet header is less complex in OSPFv3 and Hello packets sent by OSPFv3 has low overhead; also same interface can have multiple addresses. Further in OSPFv3, IPV6 addresses are located inside the payload and LSA’s do not have any IPv6 addresses but in OSPFv2, LSA’s contain IPv6 addresses.

B. Stateful Auto Configuration (DHCPv6) DHCPv6 provides extra information to a client e.g. DNS servers, domain names etc which are not provided by stateless auto-configuration. The RA that comes back to the client will inform the client if the DHCP is present and if a DHCP router is not found, then the client will reply by sending out a DHCP solicit message, which is actually a multicast message The RA that comes back to the client will tell if the DHCP is available for use. If a router is not found, the client will respond by sending out a DHCP solicit message which is actually a multicast message that says “All DHCP agents both servers and relays”. DHCPv6 provides DNS servers, domain names etc which are not provided by the auto-configuration feature. There is also ICMPv6, integral part of ipv6 as an extension header used for finding the address of other devices which are on that local link. IPv6 detects the duplicate address using a unique feature DAD (Duplicate address detection) in which a host after making or receiving an IPv6 address, sends out three DAD messages via NDP NS asking if any other host has the same address, in case there is no other host having the same IPv6 ip address, then the IPv6 address is kept or else a new IPv6 address is generated if there is an IPv6 address conflict. V.

OSPFV2 & OSPFV3 COMPARISON

A same interface can be configured with multiple addresses in OSPFv3.The complexity OSPFv3’s packet header is reduced from 24 bytes to 16 bytes compared to that of OSPFv2.IPv6 headers contain OSPFv3 packets but in OSPFv2 IPv6 addresses are within the payload. In OSPFv3, LSA’s do not

Fig.3. OSPFv3 Configuration

There is a need of configuring router ID in OPSFv3 to begin routing and hence DR and BDR routers are identified with their router ID’s instead of IP addresses as in OSPFv2. As OSPFv2 uses MD5 for authentication but OSPFv3 uses the services of IPSec for authentication. It has been tested that OSPFv3 performs better for End to end delay, traffic received and traffic sent in video conferencing, Response time in Data base query also Link state update also traffic sent by OSPFv3 is very low when compared with OSPFv2. When OSPF routers are initialized, they first start exchanging information using Hello Protocol via multicast address 224.0.0.5.After neighbor relationship is established, routers synchronize their LSDB by exchanging their LSAs. Thus OSPF Routers, first create LSA packets, share LSA packets with neighbors, update LSA Database, create shortest path tree and create routing table from the shortest path tree. VII. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study conclude that due to depletion of IPv4 address space, the transition or migration to IPv6 will happen very soon, but migration to Ipv6 is a slow process because of huge size of the internet, large no of Ipv4 users, many organizations which are totally dependent on internet can’t tolerate downtime thus migration to Ipv6 should be planned properly to take advantage of various features of Ipv6, as there are various routing protocols which have been modified to IPv6. The OSPFv3 will be the choice of internet protocol, when compared to other routing protocols, because of its various advantages and unique features like OSPF has low packet loss ratio and is better in cost of transmission and throughput, as it reaches to convergence more quickly compared to RIP. In case of various networks with different sizes, OSPF has a better performance in terms of average throughput and the packet delay is lower when compared with RIP. As the routing decisions in case of link state are always based on the state of the links that connect two hosts, thus the state of the link is a description of that interface and the relationship to its neighbor. By configuring stub-areas, totallystub areas, and proper route summarization, the size of link state database can be reduced a lot and also and processing overhead can also be reduced to allow bigger OSPF networks to exist even if the routers they have are not powerful and to avoid routing path breakdowns even in case of many and continuous topology changes. It has been tested that OSPFv3 performs better for End to end delay, traffic received and traffic sent in video conferencing, Response time in Data base query also Link state update, traffic sent by OSPFv3 is very low when compared with OSPFv2. This once migrated to IPv6, OSPFv3 will be one best choice among various routing

protocols, because of its many advantages and various unique features and it will also be the mostly used in large networks which take the advantage of its hierarchical nature and benefit from its scalability. REFERENCES [1]

[2]

[3]

[4] [5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9] [10]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14]

[15] [16]

[17]

R. J. Whitfield, Shao Ying Zhu, “A Comparison of OSPFv3 and EIGRPv6 in a small IPv6 Enterprise Network”, IJACSA Vol. 6, No. 1, pp 162-167, 2015. S.Kamalakannan, S.Venkatesh, M.Mohan, “Convergence Analysis of RIP and OSPF in IPv6 Network”, IJIREEICE Vol. 2, Issue. 3, pp 12811284, March 2014. V.Vetriselvan, Pravin R.Patil, M.Mahendran, “Survey on the RIP, OSPF, EIGRP Routing Protocols”, IJCSIT Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 1058-1065, 2014. M. E. Mustafa, “Comparison between OSPFv3 and OSPFv2”, Wireless Sensor Networks, Scientific Research, Vol. 6, pp 43-48, 2014. J. Kaur, P. Singh, “Comparitive Study of OSPFv3, IS-IS and OSPFv3_IS-IS Protocols using OPNET”, IJARCET Vol. 3, Issue. 8, pp 2656-2662, Aug. 2014. R. Narula, P. Aggarwal, “Performance Evaluatipn of RIP and OSPF in IPv6 using OPNET 14.5 Simulator”, IJTRA Vol. 2, Issue. 6, pp 37-41, Nov. 2014. Sunjian , Yin YaFang, “Research and Implement of OSPFv3 in IPv6 Network”, IEEE Cross Strait Quad-Regional Radio Science and Wireless Technology Conference, pp 743-746, July 2011. C. Wijaya, “Performance Analysis of Dynamic Routing Protocol EIGRP and OSPF in IPv4 and IPv6 Network”, First International Conference on Informatics and Computational Intelligence, IEEE Computer Society, pp 355-360, 2011. A. N. A. Ali, “Comparison study between IPv4 & IPv6”, IJCSI Vol. 9, Issue. 3, pp 314-317, May 2012. A. Dhamdhere, M. Luckie and B. Huffaker, “Measuring the Deployment of IPv6: Topology, Routing and Performance”, IMC Vol. 12, Nov. 2012. F. A. Hamza, A. M. Mohamed , “Performance Comparison of Two Dynamic Routing Protocols: RIP and OSPF”, JETCIS, Vol. 2, No. 10, pp 509-513, Oct. 2011. Peng Wu, Yong Cui, Jianping Wu, Jiangchuan Liu, Chris Metz, “Transition from IPv4 to Ipv6: A State-of-the-Art Survey ” IEEE, July 2012. A. Shah, W. J. Rana, “ Performance Analysis of RIP and OSPF Network Using OPNET”, ICSI, Vol. 10, Issue. 6, pp 256-265, Nov. 2013. A. Aggarwal, S. Khera,“ Combat Resources Shortages by making Stub Areas and Route Summarization in OSPF”, IJSRP, Vol. 2, Issue. 8, pp 1-5, Aug. 2012. P. Aggarwal,“ Review on RIP and OSPF in IPv6 Network”, IJCEA, Vol. VII, Issue. 1, pp 69-75, July. 2014 A. Hinds, A. Atojoko and Shao Ying Zhu,“ Evolution of OSPF and EIGRP Routing Protocols for IPv6”, IJFCC, Vol. 2, Issue. 4, pp 1-5, Aug. 2013 Chen Haihong, Sun Xiaoling,“Simulation and Research of OSPFv3 Performance”, International Conference on Computational and Informational Sciences, 2013