See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319162733

Scalability Evaluation of VOIP over Various MPLS Tunneling under OPNET

Modeler

Article  in  Indian Journal of Science and Technology · August 2017

DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i29/117369

CITATIONS READS
10 178

3 authors:

Faycal Bensalah Najib EL KAMOUN

Université Chouaib Doukkali Université Chouaib Doukkali
33 PUBLICATIONS   48 CITATIONS    178 PUBLICATIONS   392 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ayoub Bahnasse
University of Hassan II of Casablanca
82 PUBLICATIONS   277 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Smart Grid View project

Novel Frameworks of Smart and Adaptive QOS Management for computer networks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayoub Bahnasse on 26 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN (Print) : 0974-6846
ISSN (Online) : 0974-5645
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 10(29), DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i29/117369, August 2017

Scalability Evaluation of VOIP over Various MPLS

Tunneling under OPNET Modeler
Faycal Bensalah1*, Najib El Kamoun1 and Ayoub Bahnasse2
1
Lab STIC, Faculty of Sciences El Jadida, University Chouaib Doukkali, Morocco;
f.bensalah@ucd.ac.ma, elkamoun.n@ucd.ac.ma
2
Lab LTI, Faculty of Sciences BEN M’SIK, University Hassan II of Casablanca, Morocco;
a.bahnasse@gmail.com

Abstract
This paper studies and evaluate Scalability of Voice over IP (VOIP) on various MPLS Tunneling technologies. Several works
have been carried out to evaluate the performances of VOIP in different IP and MPLS architectures. According to our re-
search, no scientific work has been done analyzing scalability by increasing the load of VOIP packets in different MPLS
tunneling technologies. This was a motivation for us to propose a scalability study of the VOIP technology in the various
scenarios (IP, MPLS, MPLS VPN and MPLS VPN protected by IPsec). The study was conducted on 64 different scenarios by
changing MPLS tunneling technology and rising the packet load to the order of 2 ^ n ranging from 64 to 475000. The ob-
tained results showed that the IP network is affected by a high latency and a bad MOS score. While MPLS remains scalable
even in high load scenario (475000 bytes). IPsec on MPLS VPN isn’t a good choice to add additional security level, from
results it’s shown clearly that from scenario of 46875 bytes on load, VOIP become unusable. This study carried out under
OPNET Modeler 14.5, the evaluation criteria are jitter, latency, loss rate and MOS score.

Keywords: MPLS, MPLS VPN, Scalability VOIP, VOIP

1. Introduction
Currently, Internet service providers are investing heav-
ily in modern telecommunications networks because of
their utility, ease of use and integration of new service
lines. This investment is mainly due to the strong trend
of emerging communications technologies such as VOIP,
Videophone etc... These technologies have become part
of every citizen’s daily life, and this is evolving over time.
According to the National Telecommunications Figure 1. Households’ Equipment with Computer by Area
Regulatory Agency (ANRT) “54.8% of households are of Habitation (% Households).
equipped with a computer/tablet. This proportion varies
according to the area (urban or rural), with nearly 7 in 10 Taking into account the explosive frequency of using
urban households versus one quarter of rural households Internet, so that infrastructures can follow these develop-
(Figure 1)”. ments, routing technologies must become fast, reliable

*Author for correspondence

 Scalability Evaluation of VOIP over Various MPLS Tunneling under OPNET Modeler
and support new services such as VOIP that are sensitive
to several constraints such as:
• Jitter: The difference in delay between the sending of
two successive packets.
• Latency: The end-to-end delay between sending and
receiving the same packet.
• Loss rate: The ratio between the number of packets
sent and received.
• The MOS score: scale from 0 to 5 evaluating the qual-
ity of the VOIP, 5 represents the perfect quality.
Because of its reliability and quality of service, Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)1 technology takes
advantage of other forwarding protocols in wide area net-
works. In an MPLS network applications traffic such as
voice and video follows a multidirectional model. Users
can specify the minimum latency, jitter, and packet loss
thresholds for each type of traffic (voice, video, email,
etc.), Subsequently, the MPLS network gives priority
to the traffic of latency-sensitive data, such as voice and
video, compared to the rest of the traffic, which is less sen-
sitive.
Unlike conventional tunneling technologies, data
exchanges between the different sites do not transit via
the Internet but via the operator’s private network. MPLS
VPN technology2 offers the security advantage by inter-
connecting multiple sites while guaranteeing QoS. In
addition, the implementation is very easy as the configu-
ration is done on the operator side.
After discussing the constraints of VOIP and the
strengths of MPLS, the following questions should be
asked:
1. First, what is the difference between routing VOIP, in
an IP network and an MPLS network;
2. What is the cost of the MPLS tunnel layer, ie the differ-
ence between MPLS and MPLS-VPN;
3. If the client wants to deploy IPsec, what will be the
cost?
4. And most importantly, what is the degree of scalability
of the VOIP in the various scenarios cited above.
Several research work has been carried out conduct-
ing comparative studies between MPLS, MPLS VPN and
IP technologies. But according to our research none of
them took into consideration the rise in charge in terms
of packet size. This is for us a motivation to complete the
previous work in order to know who is most resistant to
the load rise and when the VOIP is becomes unusable for
each scenario.
2 Vol 10 (29) | August 2017 | www.indjst.org
The study was carried out under OPNET Modeler, the
evaluation criteria are: jitter, latency, loss rate and MOS
score.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in the
second section, we will briefly study the various MPSL,
MPLS VPN and MPLS VPN protected by IPsec. In the
third section we will present the state of the art and our
motivations. The simulation environment will be detailed
in the fourth section, describing the tool used, the scenar-
ios chosen and the network parameters. The fifth section
will be dedicated to the results obtained and we will con-
clude in the last section.
2.  MPLS Technologies
Initial Internet deployment responds to data transfer
over the network. For this, a simple software router and
network interfaces were sufficient. As the ability to sup-
port high-speed transmissions has emerged, elements
capable of switching to Level 2 and Level 3 have had to be
deployed at the hardware level.
These solutions respond to the need for rapid packet
transfer while crossing the network, but do not meet the
service requirements for the information contained in the
packets. In addition, the majority of routing protocols
currently deployed rely on algorithms to obtain the fast-
est gateway on the network, but do not take into account
other measures such as delays or congestion that can
seriously decrease Network performance. Traffic manage-
ment is a goal for network administrators.
2.1 MPLS
A label3 identifies the path that the packet must follow.
A label is transported or encapsulated in the level 2
header of the packet. The router that receives it, exam-
ines the packet to determine the next hop according to
its label. Once a packet is labeled, the rest of its transfer
is based on label switching. The label values have local
significance. These values can also directly determine
a virtual path (DLCI in Frame Relay or VCI and VPI
in ATM4).
The labels are associated with a FEC according to
a logic or a policy determining this association. This
decision can be made on the following criteria: Unicast
routing to destination, traffic management, multicast,
Virtual Private Network (VPN) or QoS.
MPLS performs the following functions:
Indian Journal of Science and Technology

• It is independent of the layers 2 and 3 protocols.
• It interacts with existing routing protocols, such as
RSVP5 and OSPF.
• Supports layer 2 layer of IP, ATM, and Frame Relay
networks.
In MPLS, data transmission is done on label-switched
paths (LSPs). LSPs are a sequence of labels at each node
of the path from the source to the destination. LSPs are
established according to the type of data transmission
(control-driven6) or after the detection of a certain type of
data-driven7. Labels are distributed according to the LDP
(Label Distribution Protocol), RSVP protocol, or by rout-
ing protocols such as BGP or OSPF.
2.2  MPLS Architecture
MPLS has two major components:
• Control plane: Exchanges Layer 3 routing information
and labels; contains complex mechanisms to exchange
routing information, such as OSPF, EIGRP, IS-IS, and
BGP, and to exchange labels; such as LDP, and RSVP
• Data plane: Forwards packets based on labels; has a
simple forwarding engine
MPLS is already used in many different applications:
• Unicast IP routing
 vider option. In this scenario, your customer edge (CE)
• Multicast IP routing
 routers exchange routes with your provider edge (PE)
• MPLS TE
• QoS
 service provider routers form the core of your WAN
• MPLS L2/L3 VPNs
Regardless of the application, the functionality is
always split in to the control plane and the data (forward-
ing) plane:
• The applications differ only in the control plane.
• The applications all use a common label-switching
data (forwarding) plane.
• Edge LSR Layer 3 data planes may differ.
 connectivity between your sites regardless of your net-
2.3  MPLS VPN
The MPLS VPN is a Private VPN that does not come out
on the Internet (hence better security). It is mastered by a
single operator and traverses a limited number of servers
controlled by the operator himself. This mode of trans-
port has many advantages; it allows among others to give
priorities on flows (QoS plan: quality of service).
IPsec VPN also allows the creation of a private network
between two or more sites, but the data is routed via the
Internet, which means that the data can pass through sev-
eral operators through a non-fixed number of gateways.
Vol 10 (29) | August 2017 | www.indjst.org
Faycal Bensalah, Najib El Kamoun and Ayoub Bahnasse
Table 1 represents a comparative synthesis between
VPN technologies
Table 1.  Comparative synthesis between VPN technologies
VPN MPLS IPsec VPN
Provider Network Private Public
Latency Low delay Non-Guaranteed
Throughput 100% 15% is consumed by IPsec
QoS Guaranteed very difficult (the data is
encrypted)
Management Yes No
2.4  Different Types of MPLS VPNs
That there are two types of VPN MPLS-based services:
Layer 3 MPLS VPNs and Layer 2 MPLS VPNs. Layer 3
MPLS VPNs operate at Layer 3, and Layer 2 MPLS VPNs
operate at Layer 2 of the OSI model.
2.4.1  Layer 3 MPLS VPNs
Service providers typically refer to Layer 3 (L3) MPLS
VPNs when they say “MPLS VPN.” These VPNs are
popular because they are the most scalable service pro-
routers. When you use L3 MPLS VPN services, the
backbone. The MPLS VPN backbone always uses Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) as its routing protocol. Almost
any other routing protocol can be used to connect your
sites with the MPLS VPN backbone, but many service
providers limit the choices to BGP and static routing.
Each of your edge routers peers with just one router
-- the PE-router -- and you get optimum any-to-any
work topology.
2.4.2  Layer 2 MPLS VPNs
Layer 2 (L2) MPLS VPNs resemble a virtual circuit type
service and are very effectively used by service providers
in the Metro Ethernet field. According to Enders, there
are two main RFCs that define two L2 MPLS VPN topolo-
gies:
• The Martini draft specifies the concept of virtual cir-
cuits as another overlay label switched path (LSP)
inside a tunnel LSP. It addresses the problem of point-
to-point VPN connections in MPLS VPNs.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3
 Scalability Evaluation of VOIP over Various MPLS Tunneling under OPNET Modeler

• The second important RFC on the label distribution
protocol (LDP), drafted by Marc Lasserre and Vac
Kompella, specifies the virtual private LAN service
(VPLS), which presents a solution for multipoint con-
nectivity for the Layer 2 MPLS VPN. It builds upon
the Martini approach by expanding the concept to a
full mesh network topology. VPLS is commonly mar-
keted under the name “Enterprise Private LAN.”
VPN. The study will be done under the OPNET Modeler
tool.
Indeed there are several scientific simulators that can
be used as NS3, BONeS, etc. The author Jing-bo15 makes
an objective comparison between them. From a database
point of view, OPNET supports the equipment of differ-
ent manufacturers, and especially it remains the simplest
tool to handle.

3.  Related Works 4.  Scenario of the Experiment

Several research work has been done evaluating the 4.1  Simulation Environment
performance of VOIP in MPLS networks compared to This project addresses voice constraints and evaluates
IP-based conventional networks. Ravonimanantsoa8 car- performances of MPLS, MPLS VPN, MPLS IPsec VPN
ried out a comparative study between the two networks and IP networks.
MPLS and BGP by evaluating the quality of the VOIP, the The model of the experimentation used is as follows
author showed that the MPLS backbone is much more (Figure 2):
efficient in terms of delay, jitter and packet loss.
In another work, Mahesh9 performed a comparison
between the behavior of VOIP in MPLS and Non MPLS
networks under the QualNet 4.0 simulator. The author
first studied the MPLS signaling protocols (CR-LDP,
RSVP and RSVP-TE) and showed the improvements
induced by these mechanisms on the quality of the VOIP.
Sllame10 and Jannu11 have arrived at the same results.
Akinsipe12 and Mohammed Faisal13 of their parts
assessed the impact of IP, MPLS and MPLS architectures
with VOIP traffic engineering. The study was done under Figure 2.  Network Testbed.
OPNET Modeler. After simulation, the authors found
that the IP network requires the highest bit rate and the The project contains 64 scenarios: We have created 4
MPLS network requires a higher bit rate than the MPLS scenarios (IP, MPLS, MPLS VPN and MPLS IPsec VPNs),
RSVP-TE network. MPLS offers the best results in terms for each scenario we have increased the packet load to the
of optimal utilization of network resources, while the order of 2 ^ n ranging from 64 to 475000.
MPLS RSVP-TE network offers the best performance for
VOIP traffic thanks to resource’s reservation along the 4.2  Simulation Parameters
path. Table 2 shows the VOIP parameters.
Shahid Ali14 conducted a study on the impact of
MPS VPN on the performance of VOIP. The author has Table 2.  VOIP Parameters
included the QoS and varied the internal routing proto- Traffic VOIP
cols OSPF and RIP. The author in his dissertation showed
Codec G.711 with silence remove
that the QoS in MPLS VPN influences the VOIP end to
Packet interval 20 ms
end delay.
Number of packets 1000
The previous work was not done taking into account
the increase in load. It is for this reason that we propose
to carry out a scalability study of VOIP in the various sce- Table 3 illustrates the configuration of the equipment
narios: IP, MPLS, MPLS VPN and IPsec protected MPLS used in the simulation:

4 Vol 10 (29) | August 2017 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 Faycal Bensalah, Najib El Kamoun and Ayoub Bahnasse

Table 3.  Equipment and technology of links used in 5.2  Loss Rate
simulation
P c7200
PE c7200
CE c3745
Link CE-PE FastEthernet
Link PE-P GigaEthernet
Link P-P GigaEthernet

Table 4 shows the IPsec parameters used in the IPsec

MPLS VPN scenario:

Table 4.  Ipsec parameters

Authentication PSK Figure 4.  Loss rate.
Integrity SHA
Encryption AES
Figure 4 illustrates loss rate results, as noticed, all IP
Group 5
Based scenarios bypass recommended loss rate value ear-
Lifetime 86400
lier. MPLS and VPN MPLS scenarios are the most scalable
they offer a loss rate lower than 1%. However IP and IPsec
5.  Obtained Results scenarios are influenced by the process of de-encapsulation
of the packets and the consultation of the RIB table. VOIP
5.1 Jitter
on IP scenario become unusable from eighth scenario and
from thirteenth for MPLS IPsec VPN scenario.

5.3 Latency

(a) IP Scenario (b) MPLS Scenario

(a) IP Scenario (b)  MPLS Scenario

(d) MPLS VPN IPsec

(c) MPLS VPN scenario
Scenario

Figure 3.  Jitter.

Figure 3 illustrates the jitter value in IP (a), MPLS (b),
MPLS VPN (c), and MPLS VPN IPsec (d) scenarios.
The obtained results show that scenarios a, b and c (c)  MPLS VPN scenario (d)  MPLS VPN IPsec
have almost identical values. However, with the introduc- Scenario
tion of the encryption layer the jitter increases from the
fourteenth scenario. Figure 5.  Latency.

Vol 10 (29) | August 2017 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 5
 Scalability Evaluation of VOIP over Various MPLS Tunneling under OPNET Modeler
Figure 5 illustrates the latency results. Taking into
account the results of the loss rate, it can be seen that the
IP protocol is not efficient even if its latency is the lower
compared to the other scenarios.
The MPLS protocol offers the best results, the same
results are shown from MPLS VPN. The difference
between them is justified by the process of routing in the
tunnel and the dual labeling process performed in MPLS
VPN.
IPsec, as in the IP network, adds an additional delay,
making VOIP unusable from fourteenth scenario.
5.4 MOS
(a) IP Scenario (b) MPLS Scenario
(c) MPLS VPN scenario (d) MPLS VPN IPsec
Scenario
Figure 6.  MOS.
Figure 6 shows the MOS score. MPLS offers the most
suitable score, while IP and IPsec based scenarios offer
the worst quality of speech. MPLS VPN offers an accept-
able score.
6. Conclusion
Under OPNET Modeler, in this study we evaluated the
scalability of architectures: (i) IP, (ii) MPLS, (iii) MPLS
VPN, and (iv) MPLS IPsec VPN. Measurements were
made by increasing the VOIP packet load.
The results obtained showed that the IP network is
affected by a high latency and a bad MOS score. From
6 Vol 10 (29) | August 2017 | www.indjst.org
scenario of 2048 bytes on load the IP scenario bypassed
the acceptable VOIP values, while MPLS remains scalable
even in high load scenario (475000 bytes).
IPsec on MPLS VPN isn’t a good choice to add addi-
tional security level, from results it’s shown clearly that from
scenario of 46875 bytes on load VOIP become unusable.
7. References
1. Davie BS, Rekhter Y. MPLS: technology and applications.
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc; 2000.
2. Chen W, Chen H, Liu KH, Soon SC, Zhou B. U.S. Patent
No. 7,450,598. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office; 2008.
3. Wijnands IJ, Minei I, Kompella K, Thomas B. Label
Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint
and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths (No.
RFC 6388). 2011.
4. Pham CD, Fdida S. Evaluation de Performance des Reseaux
ATM: Etude et Perspectives en Utilisant la Simulation
Distribuee. In: Actes du Colloque Francophone sur
l’Ingénierie des Protocoles (CFIP’96), 1996. p. 17–31.
5. Zhang L, Deering S, Estrin D, Shenker S, Zappala D. RSVP:
A new resource reservation protocol. IEEE network. 1993;
7(5):8–18. Crossref
6. Das, Saurav, Sharafat, Reza A, Parulkar, Guru, et al.
MPLS with a simple OPEN control plane. Optical Fiber
Communication Conference and Exposition (OFC/
NFOEC), the National Fiber Optic Engineers Conference,
2011. p. 1–3. Crossref
7. Moisand, Jerome P, Aggarwal, Rahul, Wadhwa, Sanjay, et
al. Layer two (L2) network access node having data plane
MPLS. U.S. Patent No 8,121,126, 21 févr. 2012.
8. Ravonimanantsoa N, Rakotomalala M.A. Dimensionnement
Du Backbone Mpls Pour Les Traffic Voip. Madaeti. 2015;
2:85–94.
9. Porwal MK, Yadav A, Charhate SV. Traffic Analysis of
MPLS and Non MPLS Network including MPLS Signaling
Protocols and Traffic distribution in OSPF and MPLS.
First International Conference on Emerging Trends in
Engineering and Technology, ICETET’08, 2008. p. 187–92.
Crosserf
10. Sllame AM, Aljafari M. Performance Evaluation of
Multimedia over IP/MPLS Networks. International Journal
of Computer Theory and Engineering. 2015; 7(4):283.
11. Jannu K, Deekonda R. OPNET simulation of voice over
MPLS with Considering Traffic Engineering. Blekinge
Institue of Technology. 2010; 15.
12. Akinsipe O, Goodarzi F, Li M. Comparison of IP, MPLS and
MPLS RSVP-TE Networks using OPNET. International
Journal of Computer Applications. 2012; 58(2). Crossref
Indian Journal of Science and Technology

13. Faisal M, Uddin J, Shil S. Performance of VoIP networks
using MPLS traffic engineering. Advanced Materials
Research. 2012; 457:927–30. Crossref
14. Ali S, Rana BZ. OPNET analysis of VoIP over MPLS VPN
with IP QoS. Sweden: Blekinge Institute of Technology;
2011.
Vol 10 (29) | August 2017 | www.indjst.org
View publication stats
Faycal Bensalah, Najib El Kamoun and Ayoub Bahnasse
15. Xia JB, Li MH, Wan LJ. Research on MPLS VPN network-
ing application based on OPNET. International Symposium
on Information Science and Engineering, ISISE’08. 2008;
1:404–8.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology 7