Internetworking with TCP/IP Switched Networks

Question: Describe about the Internetworking with TCP/IP for Switched Networks. Answer: 1. Discuss why packet switched networks are used for data communication instead of circuit switched. The packet-based network transmits the data packets into small pieces of data packets, those data packet's header address include the destination address as well as describe the sequence for reassembling it at the destination (de Valicourt et al., 2014). Due to this characteristic packet switching minimize the transmission latency as well as optimize the available bandwidth in a network. Therefore, it provides more reliable data communication instead of circuit switched. 2. First Group: Network address Usable IP Addresses Broadcast 142.39.0.0 / 18 142.39.0.1 - 142.39.63.254 142.39.63.255 Maximum IP addresses 16382 Second Group: Network address Usable IP Addresses Broadcast 142.39.64.0 / 20 142.39.64.1 - 142.39.79.254 142.39.79.255 Maximum IP addresses 4094 Third Group: Network address Usable IP Addresses Broadcast 142.39.80.0 / 20 142.39.80.1 - 142.39.95.254 142.39.95.255 The number of address are still available is 40964. 3. The router R1 and R2 if are both central router then it will all depend on the connection links those are either separate individually or coming through R2 or R1 router to the central location (Vissicchio et al., 2015). In any circumstances if router R1 goes down then the connected route links of router R1 will be lost, it also applies to router R2. Therefore this situation totally depends on the site traffic that is served by them. 4. MPLS packet encapsulation for Ethernet DA SA TYPE 8100 VLAN TAG TYPE 8847 TUNNEL LABEL PW LABEL CONTROL WORD CELL HEADER Cell Payload The type filed value for Ethernet protocol is set to 0x8100. Explanation The communication between networks is done by the structure of the OSI model; it defines that how every bits are communicated. MPLS (multiprotocol label switching) is a vital technology or protocol, which is describe as "layer 2.5". Now review the two layers of the OSI models such as layer 2 and layer 3 (Fang et al., 2013). The layer 2 is a data link layer (Ethernet) it defines how to communicate between a homogenous network with many devices, as well as the layer 3, is a network layer (IP), it performed the best possible route and added some QoS (quality of service). Layer 3 provides the dynamic-packet routing from source to destination. The characteristic of MPLS protocol provides the packet forwarding speed of Layer 2 where it includes the scalability as well as dynamic capabilities of layer 3 (Raszuk et al., 2015). However, it holds the both characteristic of layer 2 and 3. Therefore it can be define as "Layer-2.5". Best Case to use Traceroute and Tracepath The Traceroute" command is used to trace the route of a data packet travel from source to destination. It is use to find out the packet loss as well as high latency for the network communication (Agarwal et al., 2014). It is the best to use for when having trouble with connecting to the destination. In other words, it will visualize the hop count, time and the path traffic takes between sources to a destination. The Tracepath command is used to trace MTU (maximum transmission unit) along with this path. This command is used any random port or UDP port; it is very much similar to traceroute (Templin, 2013). It is best for any connection issue, but it can provide more information than traceroute such as commercial IP routers does not return detail information of ICMP request in a circumstance of updating the routing table. However, Tracepath can discover all information during this any situation due to this characteristic it is the best way for TCP/IP troubleshooting. The first and last byte number The fist byte number is: 89 x 8 = 712. The last byte number is: 791 5. It can be considered that IPv4 has the deficiency in regards to the IPv6 for the current usage of the internetworking as well as implementation. This is simply because of the fact that IPv4 has a finite or a limited number of address spaces to allocate number of IP addresses over the network (Kaur, Sahni Bala, 2013). The IPv4 mainly utilizes the address space of 32 bit. In other words, the internetworking protocol, IPv4 is unable to support adequately the additional nodes or the new requirements of the new applications. The current allocation practices of IPv4 address limit the number of available public addresses of IPv4. While the internetworking usage is concerned for the IPv4, it can be seen that numerous addresses those are allocated to several organizations were not utilized as well as it made the IPv4 address scarcity (Fang et al., 2013). On the other hand, IPv6 has very large address space and huge internetworking usage that can allow a hierarchical, systematic as well as better allocation of addresses and effective aggregation of the route. IPv6 provides a hierarchical as well as efficient routing and addressing infrastructure along with providing large address space (Heisswolf et al. 2013). In spite of this huge limitation of IPv4, nowadays, it is utilized as the prime role in the communications across the WLAN as well as LAN. The IPv4 mainly plays a significant role in providing reliable security as well as flexibility. Most importantly, due to its simplicity and familiarity have made IPv4 popular to be utilized as the prime role over the LAN and WLAN. However, the exhaustion of the address space of IPv4 is the key concern over the WLAN, LAN as the number of IP-enabled devices has been increased, and the growth of the commercial Internet is explosively enhancing (Vissicchio et al., 2015). Presently the lake of internet protocol is discovered by many organizations that can be eliminated by the IPv6 address space. Now Ipv6 provides more efficient routing and hierarchical process to re-structure the size of the routing table. It allows the source device to operate the fragmentation process rather than the router itself. However, it uses a protocol to discover the MTU (Ali, 2012). Where in IPv4 it will still Handel by the router, which is a very less efficient process for fastest growing E-market. In IPv6 ip layer is resorted for true end-to-end connectivity by excluding the network address translation (NAT). Bibliography Agarwal, K., Rozner, E., Dixon, C., Carter, J. (2014, August). SDN traceroute: Tracing SDN forwarding without changing network behavior. In Proceedings of the third workshop on Hot topics in software defined networking (pp. 145-150). ACM. Ali, A. N. A. (2012). A comparison studies between IPV4 IPV6. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 9(3), 314-317. Borman, D. (2012). TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS). de Valicourt, G., Moroz, N. D., Jenneve, P., Vacondio, F., Duan, G. H., Jany, C., ... Antona, J. C. (2014). A next-generation optical packet-switching node based on hybrid III-V/silicon optical gates. IEEE Photonics Technology letters, 26(7), 678-681. Fang, L., Bitar, N., Zhang, R., Daikoku, M., Pan, P. (2013). MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Applicability: Use Cases and Design (No. RFC 6965). Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., Mansfield, S., Graveman, R. (2013). MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Security Framework (No. RFC 6941). Heisswolf, J., Knig, R., Kupper, M., Becker, J. (2013). Providing multiple hard latency and throughput guarantees for packet switching networks on chip. Computers Electrical Engineering, 39(8), 2603-2622. Kalwar, S., Shaikh, S., Zaki, N., Memon, A. (2014). The transition of Real Time Network from IPv4 to IPv6Simulated Test Bed and Analysis. Journal of Networking Technology Volume, 5(2), 47. Kaur, H., Sahni, V., Bala, M. (2013). A Survey of Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid Routing Protocols in MANET: A Review. Network, 4(3), 498-500. Kitayama, K. I., Huang, Y. C., Yoshida, Y., Takahashi, R., Segawa, T., Ibrahim, S., ... Mizukoshi, Y. (2015). Torus-topology data center network based on optical packet/agile circuit switching with intelligent flow management. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 33(5), 1063-1071. Partridge, C., Milliken, W. C., Mankins, D. P. (2014). U.S. Patent No. 8,688,979. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Perell, J., Spadaro, S., Ricciardi, S., Careglio, D., Peng, S., Nejabati, R., ... Dorren, H. J. (2013). All-optical packet/circuit switching-based data center network for enhanced scalability, latency, and throughput. IEEE Network, 27(6), 14-22. Raszuk, R., Zhao, Q., Fang, L., Li, Z., Yang, T. (2015). Use cases of MPLS Global Label. Templin, F. (2013). Operational Guidance for IPv6 Deployment in IPv4 Sites Using the Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP). Vissicchio, S., Tilmans, O., Vanbever, L., Rexford, J. (2015). Central control over distributed routing. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 45(4), 43-56. Yu, J., Qi, Y., Wang, G., Gu, X. (2012). A cluster-based routing protocol for wireless sensor networks with nonuniform node distribution. AEU-International Journal of Electronics and Communications, 66(1), 54-61.