ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 A EXPLORATION OF MULTI-PROTOCOL LABEL SWITCHING (MPLS) NETWORK: A REVIEW

Nisha 1, Dr. Rashid Hussain 2

Ph.D. Scholar 1, Associate Professor 2 Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Mahal Jagatpura, Jaipur 1, 2

Received: 14 March 2020 Revised and Accepted: 8 July 2020

ABSTRACT: The central principle of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Network (MPLS) utilizes Label Switching Path (LSP) technology that provides high efficiency in packet transmission without needing to check for routing tables. Nevertheless, where a connection breakdown happens in an MPLS network, the reconstruction of a new path may entail further overhead. The MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) network is increasingly moving into a general and converged network capable of exchanging multi-service (voice, data, and video) information on the same IP-based network. Quality of service (QoS) has been progressively a critical requirement for new applications carrying MPLS networks. It realization helps service companies to develop the methods of network design and include full network services and to resolve any loss. This article describes a standard network loss (the loss would contribute to the restoration of the path in the MPLS network by using MPLS) and the network failure on the basis of exploratory study findings.

KEYWORD: Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS), Label Switch Path (LSP), Quality of Service (QoS)

I. INTRODUCTION

MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) is used as the core technologies of multiple autonomous systems in many business networks and public infrastructures. This is a connection-oriented infrastructure intended to solve the challenges of today’s network in terms of volume, scalability and traffic engineering. Most of the time, MPLS is deemed to be at the peak of the transmission network (SDH or WDM depends on the connection speed required). In addition, the forwarding of MPLS data packets is tag-based, rather than encapsulated text-based parsing at high level. It is a multiprotocol system that supports any network protocol at the lower layer (link or physical) and any system. MPLS is used as a traffic management tool that more easily guides traffic across the network than navigating the initial shortest IP path. Network routes can be designated for critical traffic, and for these traffic secure connections and routers with uncertain faults will be used. The problem, however, is whether it is acceptable to place MPLS nodes at the edge of the network to receive packet traffic from consumers, or to add MPLS facilities on a subset of core nodes to take advantage of packet switching’s versatility and multiplexing. , contributing to greater delivery of Broadband [14-17].

Based on the context and the research to be performed with this network model the network specifications for all networks can be split into several components. End-to - end features are calculated in the direction of one or more traffic flowing through various network equipment, which may be applied across the entire network. MPLS does, though, start offering specific support rates depending on the business specifications. They have to be versatile. You should choose the recovery method, choose the protected traffic granularity, and choose the particular form of protected traffic, so that this payout can be best managed by service. MPLS network recovery is based on the method used for identifying faults and flows of path data on alternate routes. The following principle can guide MPLS restoration: There are limitations on improving the restore time of current routing algorithms. Regarding MPLS-based backbones, the problem of fault tolerance focuses on whether to shield traffic from node and connection failures on Label Switch Path (LSP). Two well-known methods of recovery (switch security and redirect) have been suggested at the IETF, but other researchers come up with new solutions each year, although they have their own advantages and drawbacks. Both models in an MPLS system can support an end-to - end working path, but they cannot prevent node failures on input or output tag switching (LSR) routers.

Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is the cornerstone of the IP world, it is the latest fastest expanding network of communication that will increase network efficiency and scalability. The MPLS network is distinguished by promoting traffic management tunnels by reducing congestion and by allowing good use of all usable network bandwidth. MPLS network traffic engineering primary feature is resource allocation, fault tolerance and optimal usage of resources. Multiprotocol Mark Swapping (MPLS) technology allows traffic

2664

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 engineering (TE) and increases efficiency in conventional IPv4 networks with different protocols. For the upcoming large-scale backbone network MPLS is likely to be chosen as the IP network operator. The MPLS network’s primary goal is to apply brief fixed-length labels to packets inside the MPLS domain's inbound router. The delivery of data packets to the network relies on the marked tag, not the longest address match as conventional IP transmission. Routers or nodes positioned at the edge of the MPLS network, called label edge routers (LER), are labeled with labels dependent on the peer forwarding class (FEC). The internal router that performs tag-based packet switching and forwarding in an MPLS network is named a mark switching router (LSR) [18-19].

II. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Xu et al. (2010) the multi-domain network is a significant focus field, and the return signal approach offers tremendous recovery potential after loss. Most research in this area, however, have neglected to resolve numerous cases of failure, such as similar deficiencies such as those triggered by assaults on weapons of mass destruction. This paper therefore suggests a novel loopback recovery approach in IP / MPLS networks after intra domain / inter domain faults (which can also be applied to optical DWDM networks). In particular, in order to enhance the recovery method, the routing status information of the route / distance vector between domains is combined with the hierarchical node / bridge breakdown and the path status information inside the domain. Analyze instead the efficiency of the approach introduced for several failure scenarios. This paper suggests a modern recursive approach for the recovery under several failures of large-scale multi domain backbones (i.e. assaults of the WMD). This approach uses an optimized technique for the next-hop domain collection, coupled with a robust rollback background monitoring function to increase the recovery phase performance. In turn, a dual crank reverse counter approach is implemented to reduce the amount of attempts to retry intra-domain / inter-domain, which allows end-to - end which intermediate recovery modes. Detailed performance results indicate that the recovery rate after failure is very strong for fault events linked to different severity rates, especially for E2E rollback. Future studies should concentrate on expanding this work by restore behavior and alignment of security approaches across theoretical models. Capone et al. (2015) the suggested framework is based on Open State, which is an open-flow extension that enables programmers to decide how to autonomously change the forwarding rules on a state-dependent basis, thus minimizing reliance on remote controllers. They implemented the scheme and two separate formulas used for the backup route estimation. We introduced a modern fault management system for SDN in this paper, and a statistical simulation approach expressly developed to take advantage of open state technology. The system finds failure of single connection as well as failure of single node. The security strategy is based on the following idea: if a fault is observed, it is easy to label and track the data packet along the main path and deliver the malfunction signal to the first suitable redirect point, thereby immediately creating a detour path. Such method of scheme is designed to render the loss of data packets negligible after the malfunction has been observed, which does not demand that the controller interfere. The model was evaluated on three established topologies and tests of contrast were obtained demonstrating the supremacy of this system over the classical end-to - end route security scheme and the approach focused on the process of open-flow rapid failover. They are presently researching size issues and designing open-state systems of tests to validate the suggested approach. Almandhari & Shiginah (2015) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) implemented by the IETF (Internet Technology Task Force) is commonly used in communication networks to have a QoS security assurance. Network errors will seriously disrupt essential data traffic in this connection-oriented protocol which is undesirable to clients needing extremely stable services. Engineers also established numerous recovery protocols for MPLS to ensure traffic is diverted from the initial failed path to the replacement path in order to maintain high QoS and boost network stability during faults. This paper provides an in-depth analysis into the process of MPLS recovery to secure and restore traffic after failure. A modern MPLS restoration simulation system focused on the multilayer approach was developed to model the restoration process in the MPLS network. The latest architecture concept is robust and flexible: with various MPLS recovery methods, you can easily model network topologies and simulate variable parameters / schemes for performance analysis. The recovery mechanism for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is configured to restore traffic and provide good transmission efficiency during network failures. This research is dedicated to evaluating the efficiency of the MPLS recovery mechanism by creating a new general modeling system over the simulation platform OMNeT + + as a tiered process. The suggested system was checked to validate the responsiveness of the following four models of recovery: Best Effort, Makam, Regional Rerouting, and Quick Rerating. The test’s assumption is that in every node / link failure network topology, the newly implemented system will model the MPLS recovery mechanism (i.e., the chosen mechanism and the mechanism to be applied to in the future).

2665

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 Attar et al. (2018) Optimum load allocation on a series of separate routes in a Multiprotocol Traffic Engineering Label Switching (MPLS-TE) network is considered a significant issue; this paper therefore provides a statistical framework for choosing the right technique for the shortest path. A detailed criteria is used as a criteria for selecting the number of routes which takes into account different parameters, such as the total ability of the route and the maximum delay of the route. A statistical study was conducted using the established approach, and the simulation results revealed that the network availability and traffic rely on a small number of the most appropriate routes that can optimize the integral service efficiency indices. The technological recommendations brought forward will raise the usage rate of the network by 20%. Hanshi & Al-Khateeb (2010) the restore feature of the MPLS will guarantee fast restore and a high QoS guarantee, making it increasingly common. In reality, QoS is essential for immersive and client-specific voice and video applications. Nonetheless, a failure of the connection would still cause delays and the loss of traffic from the packets that travel via the broken link. The network will then recover connectivity by moving the connectivity impacted to an alternate path. The work in this article reflects on QoS’s targets of redirecting safe traffic with appropriate content rates until failure. The suggested scheme identifies more than one alternate route in advance to enable fast routing, and the selection requirements are focused on the necessary bandwidth and end-to - end latency. They also suggested a traffic splitter in this work to break safe traffic after a malfunction, in case the usable bandwidth on the alternate route is not adequate to relay the data. Ultimately, the alternate path collection is changed according to actual network resource availability. The MPLS MNS-2 network simulator was used as a research platform to check the performance of the proposed algorithm. The network will restore traffic in this study by moving the impacted traffic to another path. The QoS goal thus requires a rehabilitation system, which redirects covered traffic of the same consistency as before the malfunction. Different criteria, such as bandwidth, quick redirection process, and redirection dependent on network upgrade details, must be assured to maintain high quality services. The suggested QoS system is implemented to provide applications dependent on network resource knowledge. Hence, the alternate route determination should be taken dependent on recent adjustments in network resource quality at the time of the failure. As regards alternate route determination criteria and redirection techniques, the suggested security system has rendered important contributions to the area of reconstruction schemes. Hassan et al. (2011) Failure of trunks / nodes can have disastrous implications unless fixed in time. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is an increasingly common technique to recover from these failures using different mechanisms. Such methods, in addition to fault recovery, often reduce latency, data failure and synchronization time, thus eliminating the issue of limited bandwidth usage. The aim of this survey report is to identify the technologies used by MPLS for the bandwidth sharing and restoration. They addressed the processes, costs, and drawbacks of global and local recovery for development. We also addressed increasing recovery technology's bandwidth sharing capacity, and explored the various proposed bandwidth sharing protocols. Their analysis should be useful to network researchers who want to grasp the operating structure of various architectures for MPLS recovery and architecture tradeoffs. Ridwan et al. (2019) Multiprotocol Label Switching Networks (MPLS) are packet-based networks with several advantages including improved network capacity, decreased network congestion and the potential to satisfy service efficiency and protocol specifications. Strict standard with any traffic going in. Already a growing number of apps are switching to packet-based environments, bringing further strain to modify their structures on network providers. Innovations and upgrades from MPLS help to insure that these networks will fulfill ever- increasing bandwidth specifications as necessary. The research offers a summary of MPLS networks and their innovative innovations, such as traffic management, security and recover, separated systems, and MPLS transport profile (MPLS-TP) and their implementations. The research has looked at the new MPLS-related issues and addressed the introduction of MPLS-TP networks in the electrical network. A study of the recent literature indicates that researchers need to be cautious when developing new MPLS protocols or implementations to ensure the optimal and most effective result is obtained. Therefore, they should infer that while MPLS is a promising technology for potential networks, there are still several obstacles to be addressed in terms of network protection and stability, especially as regards migration to MPLS-TP. Karakus & Durresi (2019) Faults are inherent throughout the operating network. They can occur every moment, anywhere in various sizes and components of the network. This would impact the network environment, such as CAPEX (capital expenditure), OPEX (operating expenditure), lack of income due to decreased service delivery, etc. To minimize the harm done by these incidents, network engineering and design responses are crucial to the network's future. In recent years, software-defined networking (SDN) has been a source of interest for academic and industrial researchers, and the quality and stability of the network has increased due to features such as unified configuration management and global network views. To this end, they investigated programmable network architectures (such as SDN technology) and standard network architectures

2666

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 (such as MPLS (multiprotocol tag) utilizing the amount of connection requests that satisfy the following criteria and their cost of connection scale metrics device pre-defined Exchange) technology) in the network economy. Network failure scenarios: I random failure of a single data plane connection, and ii) failure of a random controller (i.e., control plane). To the best of your understanding, this study is the first to suggest contrasting the Programmable Network Architecture (SDN) with the different Control Plane, Centralized Control Plane (CCP), and Distributed Control Plane (DCP) Investigation models. ), hierarchical control plane (HCP) and non- programmable network architecture (i.e. MPLS) in order to overcome the network economy should the network crash. Li & Liang (2011) A MPLS VPN dual recuperation route failure recovery (DR-PFR) route failure recovery concept is suggested for MPLS VPN path failure. DR-PFR will address the work path fault and the backup path. Experiments demonstrate that when the network crashes, under the condition of efficient utilization of capital, DR-PFR will recover the network in a timely manner and efficiently reduce the effects on consumers. The DR- PFR paradigm brings more strength to MPLS VPN. If the work path fails, the data failure probability becomes smaller than the global recovery due to the local backup route; although both the work route and the local backup path fails, this model will also guarantee that the network recovers easily. Lin & Liu (2010) Fault tolerance in network architecture must be recognized to have a secure backbone. The issue of fault tolerance for multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) -related backbones focuses on how to secure Label Switching Path (LSP) traffic from node and path failures. Two well-known restore methods (protection swapping and redirection) have been suggested at the IETF. The suggested solution uses a faultless LSP to relay the traffic from the broken LSP (affected traffic) to further boost the fault sensitive efficiency of the two recovery mechanisms. To prevent disrupting each non-faulty LSP's initial traffic, the current approach uses the least cost flow solution to calculate the volume of affected traffic each non-faulty LSP transmits. IP tunnel equipment is used for the routing of impacted traffic along the smoothly running LSP. We also suggested the concept of a license token to address the data packet uncertainty issue. Simulation tests are now evaluating the method’s efficacy. Qiu et al. (2010) nowadays, exploring the usage of modern communication technologies in real time, such as delivery systems and mission-critical transfers, and increasingly robust networks, has become an unavoidable phenomenon. MPLS is the new generation backbone system that will speed up data packet forwarding to the destination by modifying the labels. Nevertheless, if the primary LSP refuses to have replacement LSP, the MPLS frame will not be submitted to the target. For MPLS Traffic Technology, fault recovery has since been an essential subject of inquiry. The two known approaches, Makam and Haskin, actually belong to security swapping, and other approaches are essentially built on the basis of this. Yet there are drawbacks of such two well-known approaches. This post aims to fix the limitations by reviewing several MPLS-based recovery templates. In this post, the current model uses the reverse backup method to overcome the data packing issue back into the road, and uses the NS-2 simulation tool to do some experiments. The final simulation analysis reveals that the current MPLS-based form of recovery has less packet uncertainty and fewer packet delay and error as opposed to the two well-known models. Cascone et al. (2017) In the case of a node or connection malfunction in a software-defined network (SDN), the network's capacity to create a replacement route relies on the controller’s connectivity and the round trip time (RTT) between the controller and the relevant switch. Furthermore, the standard SDN data plane specification used to identify faults (such as the "quick failover" open flow) does not enable programmers to change the switch detection function, forcing SDN operators to focus on proprietary management interfaces (if available) to maintain Discovery and Discovery. Recovery lagged behind. They suggested SPIDER, which is an open flow piping architecture that offers the following functions: I a framework for identification based on periodic identification of the switch connection, and ii) it can be easily restored even in the case of remote failure. Routes traffic no matter whether driver is available. SPIDER is focused on state data plane abstraction (e.g. transparent state or P4), ensures fast identification of faults (several milliseconds or less) and recovery latency, and is configurable between overload solution capability and Failover Commitment Here they implemented the flow table's SPIDER pipe architecture, behavior model, and memory effect study. We have used Open State (Open Flow 1.3 extension for stateful packet processing) and P4 to experimentally incorporate and check SPIDER, thereby showing empirical effects of their success in terms of delay recovery and packet loss. Wang et al. (2019) Link loss is the biggest challenge that needs to be addressed, which mostly occurs on wide networks. The recovery strategy for a single connection failure may be split into two forms in a software- defined network: Active and Inactive. The turnaround period for the reactive power scheme is very long, owing to controller intervention. While the successful scheme can produce quicker recovery, a vast amount of forwarding laws may be collected, which are usually limited to alter due to expense and power usage. This paper therefore suggests an inclusive recovery scheme based on segmented routing and fewer forwarding

2667

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 guidelines for a single connection breakdown. They find impaired flows going through the same path as aggregate flows in the proposed system, and use connection security methods to recover path loss. The link security system calculates the backup path for each connection in the work direction, hence the question of calculating the backup path is suggested and represented as a nonlinear mixed integer programming model. They developed an efficient algorithm to pick the most suitable backup route to solve this problem and prevent obstruction of the connections. In fact, owing to the constraint on the limited amount of MPLS tags that can be accommodated in the packet header, they built an algorithm to split the job route and backup route into several segments in order to satisfy the hardware needs. The simulation findings indicate that the recovery period of the suggested algorithm is 14.7 percent higher and 77.1 percent higher than that of CAFFE and SPR respectively, which is greater than CAFFE in terms of the use of the forwarding law, which is 21.5 percent higher. In fact, upon regeneration, the new system won't exacerbate network congestion.

III. MPLS ARCHITECTURE

MPLS network service, such as classifying and defining IP data packets on the input node or router, with a short duration, a fixed duration, and a locally appropriate marker called a tag, and then forwarding the IP data packet to fit this tag to the router. Also such marks are used by the changed router or node to share or forward IP data packets across the network, without the usage of network layer addresses. In this MPLS architecture [19], the MPLS network must complete the routing of IP data packets using the mark in the MPLS header. The MPLS header to be transmitted in the MPLS domain must be loaded into the IP packet. The MPLS header is introduced into the native tag region of the protocol for data-link layer switching technologies such as ATM. If the Layer 2 technology does not accept the native tag area, the MPLS header has to be placed between the TCP / IP link headers of Layer 2 and Layer 3[20].

Figure 1: MPLS Architecture 3.1 MPLS Label The header of the MPLS is 32 bits long and is commonly called a header "shim" or a suffix of the MPLS. The MPLS header for example includes four fields. The symbol is 20 bits, and the procedure uses 3 bits to describe the standard of service used [21]. When congestion arises in the MPLS network, the alert code bit of the Clear Congestion Notice (ECN) is used for the notification message, and then the bit is set to 1. Otherwise it's not set to that part. Throughout the label stack, there is a number in the third area of the number stack bit (if set to 1). The last area is Time to Live (TTL), which reflects the overall period needed for IP data packet transmission or efficient IP data packet period within the MPLS network.

Table 1: MPLS Label [22]

Where; 32-bit MPLS I’d: id interest, 20 Exp: experimental, 3-bit (service class) S: stack edge, 1 bit (1 = last element in the stack name) TTL: lifetime, 8 bits

3.2 Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC): All IP data packets sent over the same path and transmitted in the same manner within an MPLS network belong to the same class or FEC [23]. For MPLS, the aggregated data packet or operation flow package is called FEC. An FEC must be built to allocate incoming untagged packets into categories or classes that would be translated to packets tagged with MPLS. Membership in MPLS FEC is not exclusively measured on the basis of the shortest path first destination address (SPF) as in the IP, but can be decided on the basis of certain parameters (such as the data packet source and certain QoS parameters in the network headers, transmission and device headers). The grouping is based on the ports of 5 tuples (source and

2668

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 destination IP addresses, transmission control protocol (TCP) or user datagram (UDP) ports, and protocol number). This contributes to packet fine grain FEC. If the data packet classification is centered only on the IP address of the recipient, then the produced FEC has an average granularity. If the data packet classification is centered on the output LSR, a coarse grain FEC is generated.

3.3 Label Switched Path (LSP): When an IP packet travels through the MPLS domain, it follows a default path, or LSP, depending on the FEC to which it is allocated by the ingress LER. The direction taken by data packets or traffic via the MPLS domain is called the mark swapping route (LSP) [24]. The LSP is unidirectional, so the network requires two LSPs to create duplex connectivity. When several Layer 3 data packets join the LSR stream, they will be identified by FEC. After the packets have been marked, they are submitted to the corresponding FEC LSP. More than one FEC class can be borne by LSP. Depending on the details in the usable MPLS header and the device at which the data packet arrives, the data packet is transmitted, and is used as an index in the table scan. On incoming IP packets, three styles of operations may be implemented, such as "move the label stack," "swap the top label with a new label" and "release the label stack"

3.4 Label Switch Router (LSR): A label transfer router (LSR) [25] is a system capable of forwarding a data packet at layer 3 and the frame capsulating the packet at layer 2. It is a router and turn able to forward data packets to layer 2. And they reside in the MPLS domain. Edge LSR is sometimes called an edge router (LER) with names. The insertion of the LSR moves the tag to the top of the IP packet and advance it to the next jump.

3.5 Label Edge Router (LER): In the MPLS network the terminal router is renamed LER [26]. The styles of LER routers are router inbound and router outbound. The MPLS network begins with the entry router, and the output is the origin of the MPLS network.

3.6 Label Distribution Protocol (LDP): Two opposite label switching routers (LSRs) in MPLS need to decide on the purpose of the labels used to relay data from and across them. Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) is a mechanism used on MPLS networks to transmit marks. LDP [27] is a series of processes and messages by these processes and messages, LSR defines a switched label route (LSP) through the network by projecting routing details directly from the network layer to the data link interface switch paths.

IV. CONCLUSION

MPLS is a potential approach for more and more systems that need to connect different QoS processes on the same core network. MPLS is one of the strongest solutions for efficiently handling traffic with various SLA criteria and easily overcomes problems to ensure users are able to access reliable services delivered by their network providers. This dissertation also addresses IP / MPLS extension, called MPLS-TP. Such a network preserves essential features of the previous MPLS network, thus removing redundant functions and carrying out improved security services. In addition to telecommunications networks, power providers do need reliable communication systems, especially when transitioning from a conventional network to a smart network which needs certain applications to be implemented. It study aims at MPLS-TP deployment of smart grid networks. Test findings suggest that this method of architecture is favored since this network is identical to SDH / SONET-based networks, and is appropriate for static networks (such as smart networks). MPLS-TP’s benefits reflect the potential of telecommunication networks on smart grids. While the MPLS network will function well in complicated traffic engineering and understanding of multi-service, it also requires continuous enhancement. The most important concern based on current issues and study findings is security, which is the primary objective of growing network.

REFERENCES

[1] Xu, F., Peng, M., Esmaeili, M., Rahnamay-Naeini, M., Khan, S., Ghani, N., & Hayat, M. (2010). Post- fault restoration in multi-domain networks with multiple failures. In 2010-MILCOM 2010 MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE (pp. 593-598). IEEE. [2] Capone, A., Cascone, C., Nguyen, A. Q., & Sanso, B. (2015, March). Detour planning for fast and reliable failure recovery in SDN with OpenState. In 2015 11th International Conference on the Design of Reliable Communication Networks (DRCN) (pp. 25-32). IEEE. [3] Almandhari, T. M., & Shiginah, F. A. (2015, February). A performance study framework for Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. In 2015 IEEE 8th GCC Conference & Exhibition (pp. 1- 6). IEEE.

2669

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 [4] Attar, H., Alhihi, M., Samour, M., Solyman, A. A., Igorovich, S. S., Georgievna, K. N., & Khalil, F. (2018). A Mathematical Model for Managing the Distribution of Information Flows for MPLS-TE Networks under Critical Conditions. Communications and Network, 10(02), 31-42. [5] Hanshi, S. M., & Al-Khateeb, W. (2010, September). Enhancing QoS protection in MPLS networks. In 2010 Second International Conference on Network Applications, Protocols and Services (pp. 95- 100). IEEE. [6] Hassan, N., Baig, A., Qadir, J., & Din, I. (2011, December). Recovery and bandwidth sharing techniques in MPLS networks. In 8th International Conference on High-capacity Optical Networks and Emerging Technologies (pp. 193-200). IEEE. [7] Ridwan, M. A., Radzi, N. A. M., Ahmad, W. S. H. M. W., Abdullah, F., Jamaludin, M. Z., & Zakaria, M. N. (2019). Recent trends in MPLS Networks: Technologies, Applications and Challenges. IET Communications. [8] Karakus, M., & Durresi, A. (2019, May). Economic analysis of software defined networking (sdn) under various network failure scenarios. In ICC 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. [9] Li, S. M., & Liang, H. Y. (2011, April). A model of path fault recovery of MPLS VPN and simulation. In 2011 International Conference on Electric Information and Control Engineering (pp. 1925-1928). IEEE. [10] Lin, J. W., & Liu, H. Y. (2010). Redirection based recovery for MPLS network systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(4), 609-620. [11] Qiu, Y., Zhu, H., Zhou, Y., & Gu, J. (2010, November). A Research of MPLS-based Network Fault Recovery. In 2010 Third International Conference on Intelligent Networks and Intelligent Systems (pp. 699-702). IEEE. [12] Cascone, C., Sanvito, D., Pollini, L., Capone, A., & Sanso, B. (2017). Fast failure detection and recovery in SDN with stateful data plane. International Journal of Network Management, 27(2), e1957. [13] Wang, S., Xu, H., Huang, L., Yang, X., & Liu, J. (2019, August). Fast Recovery for Single Link Failure with Segment Routing in SDNs. In 2019 IEEE 21st International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 17th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS) (pp. 2013- 2018). IEEE. [14] Lawrence, J. (2001). Designing multiprotocol label switching networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 39(7), 134-142. [15] Geary, N., Antonopoulos, A., Drakopoulos, E., & O'Reilly, J. (2001, April). Analysis of optimisation issues in multi-period DWDM network planning. In Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001. Conference on Computer Communications. Twentieth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Society (Cat. No. 01CH37213) (Vol. 1, pp. 152-158). IEEE. [16] Saad, T., Yang, T., Makrakis, D., & Groza, V. (2001). DiffServ-enabled adaptive traffic engineering over MPLS. In 2001 International Conferences on Info-Tech and Info-Net. Proceedings (Cat. No. 01EX479) (Vol. 2, pp. 128-133). IEEE. [17] Xiao, X., Hannan, A., Bailey, B., & Ni, L. M. (2000). Traffic Engineering with MPLS in the Internet. IEEE network, 14(2), 28-33. [18] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., Farrel, A., Hall, T., & Harrison, E. (2007). Generalized multiprotocol label switching (GMPLS) label switching router (LSR) management information base. RFC4803, Feb. [19] Wu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2010, September). A layered MPLS network architecture. In 2010 6th International Conference on Wireless Communications Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. [20] Aazam, M., Syed, A. M., & Huh, E. N. (2013, August). Redefining flow label in IPv6 and MPLS headers for end to end QoS in virtual networking for thin client. In 2013 19th Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC) (pp. 585-590). IEEE. [21] Wu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2010, September). A layered MPLS network architecture. In 2010 6th International Conference on Wireless Communications Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. [22] Fineberg, V. (2003). QoS Support in MPLS networks. MPLS/FR Alliance. [23] Han, L., Wang, J., Wang, C., & Cai, L. (2009, November). A variable forwarding equivalence class for MPLS networks. In 2009 International Conference on Multimedia Information Networking and Security (Vol. 1, pp. 273-276). IEEE. [24] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, J. P., & Ayyangar, A. (2006). Encoding of attributes for multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) label switched path (LSP) establishment using resource reservation protocol-traffic engineering (RSVP-TE). RFC 4420 (Proposed Standard), Internet Engineering Task Force.

2670

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 13, 2020 [25] Vasseur, J. P., Le Roux, J. L., Yasukawa, S., Previdi, S., Psenak, P., & Mabbey, P. (2007). Routing Extensions for Discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh Membership. RFC, 4972, 1-15. [26] Smith, D., Mullooly, J., Jaeger, W., & Scholl, T. (2011). Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets. In RFC 6178 (Proposed Standard). Internet Engineering Task Force. [27] Lasserre, M., & Kompella, V. (2007). Virtual private LAN service (VPLS) using label distribution protocol (LDP) signaling. RFC 4762, January.

2671