Fig 5 - uploaded by Shaimaa Abbas Sharafali
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
This paper studies the performance of MPLS networks TE signal protocols with different voice codecs including PCM (64 Kbps), GSM FR (13 Kbps), G.723.1 (5.3 Kbps), G.726 (16 Kbps), G.728 (16 Kbps), G.729 (8 Kbps) and IS-641(7.4 Kbps). Simulation results show that the MPLS network with CR-LDP TE signal protocol outperforms the MPLS network with RSVP...
Similar publications
his paper studies the performance of MPLS networks with TE signal protocols in relation with voice codecs. Simulation were performed and compared for a multisite network with PCM and GSM based VoIP. Simulation results show that the MPLS network with CR-LDP TE signal protocol outperforms the MPLS network with RSVP TE signal protocol in terms of both...
Citations
... A router handles layer-3 lookups and is responsible for adding or removing the labels from the packets when they enter or leave the MPLS domain. Whenever a packet is entering or leaving MPLS domain it has to pass through LER router, when a packet enters into MPLS domain through LER which is called "Ingress router", or when a packet leaves the MPLS domain through LER which is called Egress router [16]. ...
Recently, there has been an enormous growth in the use of internet and all related applications, especially real-time connection-oriented services like streaming technologies;television, and telephone applications. VoIP involves the transmission of telephone conversations using data connections that transmit packets of data based on an Internet Protocol. MPLSis the newest technology being employed today’s in the Internet core, which is continuously growing to meet the increasing demands of bandwidth and quality of connectivity. Hardware limitations represented using special routers for both technologiesand performance degradation due to network complexity iscritical problems and challenges for network designers. In this paper the performance of two MPLS technologies will be evaluated and compared. These MPLS technologies are RSVP and CR-LDP. As a result of the comparative study, it was found that the superior performance of RSVP-based MPLS signal protocol regardless network complexity and hardware limitation compared with CR-LDP-based MPLS and VoIP technology.
... The study reveals athat using TE along with QoS in MPLS network decreases the latency, jitter, packet delay variation, and end-to-end packet delay compared to the case of using TE alone for voice traffic. Al-Quzwiniand Sharafali [11] studied the performance of MPLS networks implemented TE signal protocols with different voice codecs including PCM, GSM FR, G.7231, G.726, G.728, G.729 and IS-641. Simulation results show that the MPLS network with CR-LDP TE signal protocol outperforms the MPLS network with RSVP TE signal protocol in terms of the total amount of received voice packets, voice packet delay variation, voice jitter, and the number of maintained calls for all voice codecs. ...
This paper studies the performance of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)networks for VoIP applications when applying both Traffic Engineering (TE) signal protocols and Quality of Service (QoS) algorithms. The used QoS algorithms are First-In First-Out FIFO), Priority Queuing (PQ), and Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ). The study addresses different audio codecs including PCM (64 Kbps), GSM FR (13 Kbps), G.723.1 (5.3 Kbps), G.726 (16 Kbps), G.728 (16 Kbps), G.729 (8 Kbps) and IS-641(7.4 Kbps).In term of number of maintained calls, the results show that applying QoS algorithms improves the performance of the MPLS network with RSVP TE signal protocol more than that with CR-LDP TE signal protocol. The highest number of calls is achieved when applying both RSVP TE signal protocol with WFQ algorithm. In terms of voice end-to-end delay, voice packet delay variation, and voice jitter, the PQ algorithm gives the lowest values when applied with either CR-LDP or RSVP TE signal protocols.
