Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
India.
I. INTRODUCTION
MPLS-VPNs [2] provide protection and isolation as traffic
travels through the provider network. The CE router has no
means to assure private networks across the conventional LAN
network. Usually to provide confidentiality, either a switch is
needed to be deployed and each client be located in a separate
VLAN or a separate CE router is required for every customers
organization or IP address combination attached to a PE.
These solutions are both expensive to the customer as
additional equipment is required and also requires extra
network management and provisioning for each customer site.
Multi-VRF CE is an attribute, that provides solutions to
these problems. Multi-VRF CE extends partial PE functionality
to a CE router in an MPLS-VPN network. A CE router now has
978-1-4673-9916-6/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE
2nd IEEE International Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICETECH), 17th & 18th March 2016, Coimbatore, TN, India.
II. PREVIOUS WORK
Earlier, if the customers were willing to setup a private link
between their various sites they would request the service
provider for a separate link which was a costly investment.
Also, the customers could not use the same private IP addresses
while connecting to the service provider network as the service
provider could not distinguish between the various customers
or its various departments. When MPLS VPN started getting
implemented, it enabled the service provider to lease private
links to the customer on the same network without any
additional links to be installed. Different departments can be
separated by implementing VLANs on switches in the main
site and mapping each VLAN to a VRF (sub)interface on the
PE router.
Another way to differentiate between the smaller sites or
departments was to have separate CE routers as and when
required for every customers organization or IP address
grouping for a PE router. However, both these solutions are not
optimal now as additional setup is required, making the
network more complex.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NETWORK
A. Motivation
Now, with the ever increasing expansion of companies and
industries, every company has its branches and sites spread all
over the globe. The company needs to have connectivity
between its various sites along with features like privacy and
security. A service providers network should be capable
enough to handle many such companies and its sites in the
same network architecture, satisfying all the needs of its
customers. The use of Multi-VRF enables the service provider
to handle multiple sites on one CE router itself, reducing the
2nd IEEE International Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICETECH), 17th & 18th March 2016, Coimbatore, TN, India.
C. Proposed Solution
The proposed solution satisfying these constraints can be
shown via emulators like GNS(Graphical Network Simulator)
which is applicable for real-time scenarios. The steps for
designing this network can be shown as below:
S1: VRFs on CE and PE routers
VRF instance is used for each customers every
department in the network to achieve this. The RouteDistinguisher (RD) and Route-Target (RT) are two
different concepts that are both used in an MPLS
VPN. The RD is used to keep all prefixes in the
BGP(Border Gateway Protocol) table unique, and the
RT is used to transfer routes between VRFs/VPNS.
VRFs on CE and PE routers connected to each other
should match with same RTs.
S2: Trunk ports
MPLS Multi-VRF allows different departments to use
the same physical link between the PE and the CE
routers. Trunk ports with several VLANs separate
packets amongst the departments and hence each
department has its own VLAN(Virtual Local Area
Network). This reduces the excess use of links
between CE and PE routers.
S3: Routing protocol for every VRF and between CE
and PE routers
For every VRF on CE and PE routers, a routing
protocol should be configured. Similarly, a routing
protocol should also exist for connectivity between the
CE and PE router. Most routing protocols that are
commonly used are: BGP, OSPF, EIGRP, RIP, and
static routing. In case of OSPF routing protocol, a
subcommand : capability vrf-lite is required under
router ospf at the CE router.
S4: Enable MPLS in the core service provider network
At the core service providers network, it makes no
difference between MPLS Multi-VRF or normal
MPLS VPN that uses multiple CE routers. Hence a
standard MPLS configuration is done at the core
network.
S5: Routing Protocols within the network
Multi-protocol BGP [3][4][7] which allows multiple
address families to be transferred across the network in
parallel should be used for the exchange of customers
routing information.BGP is designed to be the protocol
operating across multiple Autonomous Systems (AS)
and is more suitable for distributing very large amount
of routing information along with label distribution for
978-1-4673-9916-6/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE
2nd IEEE International Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICETECH), 17th & 18th March 2016, Coimbatore, TN, India.
B. Trunk ports
A FastEthernet link is used between the PE and Multi-VRF
CE router. Each VRF is assigned a subinterface of the link as
shown below for CE1 and CE2 routers.
2nd IEEE International Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICETECH), 17th & 18th March 2016, Coimbatore, TN, India.
Technological Institute, Mumbai, India for providing the
facilities to carry out our research and project work.
REFERENCES
V. CONCLUSION
In todays time it has become must for the service provider
to satisfy all the needs of the customer in limited amount of
resources and in a cost effective way. MPLS Multi-VRF
feature proves to be a prominent solution to many problems
that are faced between the customer and the service provider.
This paper provides a design solution for such a scenario. It can
be seen that privatization and security both are achieved in the
network with minimum links and routers by implementing the
scenario in GNS software.
The use of this design will limit the wastage of links and
instead provide route for every customer at the same instant
and in the same network infrastructure. This in turn will prove
to be cost effective for both the customers and service provider.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to express our gratitude towards Dr. R.N.
Awale for his crucial guidance and assistance in our project.
We are also thankful to our institute Veermata Jijabai