R ESULTS OF F AILOVER T IME

In this paragraph, it shows both of the simulation and real results of failover time following the testing environment setup described in Chapter 4.2.

The simulation result is shown in Fig. 4-4. The average failover time is about 45ms. The performance is better than 50ms, which is the failover requirement specified by SONET/SDH.

The real result is shown in Fig. 4-5. The average failover time is around 400ms averagely. The result is much different with the simulation one. To further analyze the result, we found the failover time is mostly wasted by the VLAN reconfiguration via the opening SNMP interface on Motorola switch blade. It is an implementation issue does not be solved in this work.

Fig. 4-4 The simulation results of failover time

Failover Time for IGMP Proxy

0.629020328

0.220390571

0.425237893

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 2 3

Testing Iterations

Time

Downstream Multicast Traffic

Fig. 4-5 The real results for failover time

Chapter 5 Conclusion

In this chapter, we make the conclusions and the future works for this research.

5.1 Conclusion

The objective of this research is to improve the availability of IGMP proxy function on an access equipment. In order to achieve the goal, we propose using redundant design with hot standby, load sharing, fast failover, and seamless resuming capabilities to reduce MTTR and to increase availability. In the research, we take the characteristics of VLAN, ATCA-based topology and multicast traffic to simplify the IGMP Proxy failover mechanism and to improve the performance. The following items are the distinguishing points of my proposed method:

„ Simple VLAN configuration to enable active-active redundancy

„ Simple standby synchronization mechanism for multicast packets

„ Simple and fast redirection method to solve flushing FDB problem

„ Simple seamless resuming procedure without interruption for IPTV service

In the thesis, my proposed architecture also supports the other advanced features, such as Multicast VLAN (Shared VLAN), for real IPTV Service deployment

The average simulation result of failover time can minimize to 45ms, which is

better than the specifications of SONET/SDH.

5.2 Future Works

In the thesis, my proposed standby synchronization mechanism is suitable for all multicast packets, not only for IGMP. There are lots of Internet protocol, such as RIP2 and VRRP, also using multicast address. To apply the mechanism to the other IP protocols, which use multicast MAC address may be a worthy research.

As the description of Chapter 4.3, the VLAN configuration interface on Motorola Switch blade is slower. The platform issue results in the overall failover performance decreasing. To choose a better Switch blade may solve the problem.

In the thesis, we realized the IGMP Proxy following the IGMP protocol v2. It can be also upgraded to v3.

Bibliography

[1] B. Alfonsi, “I Want My IPTV: Internet Protocol Television Predicted a Winner,”

IEEE Distributed Systems Online, IEEE Computer Society 1541-4922, vol. 6, no. 2, Feb.2005.

[2] HA Forum, “Providing Open Architecture High Availability Solutions”, Revision 1.0, February, 2001

[3] Peter S. Lau, “A best effort multicast algorithm,” submitted to ICCT’2006.

[4] W. Jia, W. Zhao, D. Xuan, and G. Xu,“ An Efficient Fault-Tolerant Multicast routing Protocol With Core-Based Tree Techniques,” IEEE Trans. On Parallel And Distributed Systems, Vol. 10, No. 10, October 1999.

[5] A. Fei, J. Cui, M. Gerla, and D. Cavendish,“ A Dual-Tree Scheme for Fault-Tolerant Multicast,” IEEE International Conference On Communications, 2001.

[6] Jun-Hong Cui, Michalis Faloutsos, and Mario Gerla, “An Architecture for Scalable, Efficient and Fast Fault-Tolerant Multicast Provisioning,” IEEE Network special issue on Protection, Restoration, and Disaster Recovery, 18(2), pp. 26-34, March-April, 2004.

[7] Muriel Medard, Steven Finn, Richard Barry, and Robert Gallager, “Redundant Trees for Preplanned Recovery in Arbitrary Vertex-Redundant or Edge-Redundant Graphs,” IEEE/ACM Trans. on Networking Vol. 7, No. 5, October 1999.

[8] A. Ballardie, “Core Base Tree (CBT) multicast routing architecture,” RFC2201, Sept. 1997.

[9] L. Schwiebert and R. Chintalapati, “Improved Fault Recovery for Core Based Tree,” Comp. Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, Apr. 2000.

[10] T. Pusateri, “Distance vector multicast routing protocol,” draft-ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3-11, Oct. 22, 2003.

[11] Juan Wu, YaLing Nie, Hideya Yoshiuchi, Hiroki Ikeda, “Building Multicast Controller for Carrier-grade IPTV Service over Ethernet Passive Optical Network,”

ICSNC, 2007

[12] “AdvancedTCA Base,” PICMG 3.0 R2.0, 18-Mar-05

[13] IEEE Computer Society, LAN MAN Standards Committee, “Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges,＂ IEEE 802.1d, 1998, <http://www.ieee802.org>.

[14] IEEE Computer Society, LAN MAN Standards Committee, “Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges,＂ IEEE 802.1d-2004, June 2004, <http://www.ieee802.org>.

[15] IEEE Computer Society, LAN MAN Standards Committee, “Resilient Packet Ring (RPR) access method and physical layer specifications,＂ IEEE 802.17, Sept.

2004, <http://www.ieee802.org>.

[16] Extreme Networks, “Extreme Standby Router Protocol and Virtual Routing Redundancy Protocol,＂ 2002, <

http://www.imerja.com/files/file/White%20Papers/Extreme/VRRP%20vs%20ESRP.p df >.

[17] Extreme Networks, “Ethernet Automatic Protection Switching (EAPS),＂ 2006,

< http://www.extremenetworks.com/libraries/whitepapers/WEAPS_1293.pdf>.

[18] Elie Sfeir, Saiidrine Pasquahi, Thomas Schwabe, Andreas Iselt, “Performance Evaluation of Ethernet Resilience Mechanisms＂, IEEE, 2005

[19] I. Van de Voorde, L. Tancevski, G. Chiruvolu, Y. T＇Joens, J. De Jaegher,

“Carrier-grade Ethernet: extending Ethernet into next generation metro networks”, Alcatel Telecommunications Review - 3rd Quarter 2002, <

http://lt.fe.uni-

lj.si/gradiva/KOS/clanki_pdf/18-carrier%20grade%20ethernet%20-%20extending%20ethernet%20into%20next%20generation%20metro%20networks.p df >

[20] Tim Hubbard, “Optimizing Metro Ethernet”, Nortel Networks, 2004, <

http://metroethernetforum.org/PPT_Documents/IIR-MEF-Barcelona-11-04-Optimizing-MENs.ppt >

[21] “HIPAA Compliance: An Extreme Approach”,Extreme Networks, <

http://www.forsitegroup.com/pdf/Extreme_HIPPA.pdf >

[22] S. Deering, “Host Extensions for IP Multicasting”, RFC 1112, August 1989 [23] W. Fenner, ” Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 2”, RFC 2236, November 1997

[24] B. Cain, S. Deering, I. Kouvelas, B. Fenner, A. Thyagarajan, “Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3”, RFC 3376, October 2002

[25] S. Poretsky, R. Papneja, J. Karthik, S. Vapiwala, ” Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance”, IETF (draft), November 2007