PPT network protocol First hope redundancy protocol .pptx

network protocol presentation

1. Network Flow Optimization by package balancing and authentication By: Usman Anwar Teacher: Jing Teng North China Electric Power University Control and Computer Engineering School 2019.06.05

2. Quick Overview Introduction Research Purpose First hope redundancy protocols MD5 authentication Results And Discussions Conclusion

3. Introduction every field requires high availability of network with the least probability of data loss. Therefore, redundancy should be involved as much as possible for network design. However, the high availability of network necessitates higher managerial and operational cost. Redundancy protocols substantially help to solve the problem . First Hop Redundancy Protocols (FHRPs) are implemented to overcome traffic loss from source to destination in network communications. The first hop redundancy protocols include three protocols Hot Standby Router Protocol (HSRP), Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) and Gateway Load Balancing Protocol (GLBP).

4. Introduction the comprehensive data of the protocols, their working and comparison between them. The comparison indicates that which protocol is best in which scenario and which is best among the three protocols. These protocols work on layer 3 devices that are on the Transport layer . present a viable change to the aforementioned issue through MD5 algorithm based validation. Brief prologue to the MD-5, simulation of the networks by including MD-5 authentication utilizing different routing protocols like FHRP .

5. Research Purpose Evaluate FHRP using GNS3 simulator to deal with the necessity of redundancy in networks Minimizing the packet loss in network communications by FHRP . addressing the authentication between hops by MD5 .

6. First Hope Redundancy Protocol A bility of a network to dynamically recover from the failure of a device acting as a default gateway is known as first-hop redundancy First Hop Redundancy Protocols (FHRP) is a collection of protocols that permit a secondary gateway to take over all the responsibilities of primary default gateway router if it fails

7. First Hop redundancy Protocols GLBP VRRP HSRP

8. First Hope Redundancy Protocol (HSRP ) Hot Standby Router Protocol The use case diagram has an actor that communicates with the other actor through the network and in return the other actor gives reply or even sends some messages. An actor that communicates through network has an HSRP protocol configured. Through HSRP there are two paths, one to be chosen for the transfer of the traffic. The HSRP protocol will choose that path which will have the highest priority and is active at that time

9. First Hope Redundancy Protocol ( VRRP) Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol An actor wants to communicate with the other actor over the network on which VRRP is configured. The VRRP protocol chooses path from available paths. Router1 is the active router and has the highest priority traffic will be forwarded through this router to Router3. If the Router1 is not active at that time so the VRRP protocol will transfer the traffic through Router2 .

10. First Hope Redundancy Protocol The GLBP is configured on the network so if an actor wants to communicate with the other actor. Here Router 1 is active and Router 2 is the standby router however at the same time both the routers can send the traffic to achieve the load balancing (GLBP) Gateway Load Balancing Protocol

11. MD5 Authentication Brief introduction to the MD-5, simulation of the networks by including MD-5 authentication utilizing different routing protocols like FHRP. GNS3 is being utilized to mimic the situations MD-5 supports in giving the verification and swiftness by whom the encryption I suggest arrangement dependent on MD5 calculation for settling this security weakness exhibited by HSRP and the other group of FHRP protocols

12. Protocols Packet Size CPU utilization (%) Convergence duration [second] Bandwidth Utilization [Kbps] HSRP 100 0.69 8.056 0-1 VRRP 68 1.06 9.934 0-1 GLBP 108 0.54 7.344 0-1 Protocols Packet Size CPU utilization (%) Convergence duration [second] Bandwidth Utilization [Kbps] HSRP 100 1.78 3.564 0-3 VRRP 68 2.15 7.935 0-3 GLBP 108 1.62 2.983 0-3 COMPARISION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Comparison of HSRP, VRRP and GLBP by using default values of hold time, priority, preempt and ‘Hello’ time test was performed by setting priority value 215, hold time to 6 seconds and rest to be the same. The output we got from this test is shown

13. COMPARISION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Features VRRP HSRP GLBP Timers Advertisement 1 sec Master down interval 3 sec Hello: 3sec Hold:10 sec Hello 3 sec, hold 10 sec Type of Traffic 224.0.0.18 –UDP 112 224.0.0.10 2-udp 224.0.0.10 2- UDP 3222 Election leading Priority leading IP, Master Router   Active Router, leading priority, lofty IP Active Virtual Gateway Lofty priority, eminent IP Standard IEEE Cisco Cisco Router Role solitary master router and at least one backup gateways Single active and single standby router and one or more listening router One AVG gateway and up to 4 AVF routers on the group Comparison of HSRP, VRRP and GLBP

14. COMPARISION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Packet loss in HSRP Packet loss in VRRP

15. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Packet missing in GLBP Packet loss in HSRP is more as compared to the other two protocols. In the VRRP the packet loss is less as compared to HSRP whereas the packet loss in the VRRP is more as compared to the GLBP . The GLBP is the latest protocol and is designed for FHRP and for the load balancing. The packet loss in the GLBP is approximately zero

16. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Hello time is the approximate period between the hello messages that the router sends to the other router . The hello time of the HSRP and GLBP is same that is 3 sec whereas the hello time of the VRRP is different from that of the HSRP and GLBP. Hold time indicates the time interval that the router waits before the states of two or more routers are changed. It is measured in seconds. The hold time of the HSRP and GLBP is different from that of the VRRP. The hold time of the HSRP and GLBP is 10 sec whereas the hold time of VRRP is 0 sec

17. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS If any aggressor is now there in our LAN so he can imagine like dynamic router and make inert to the two switches dynamic too backup switch. For sparing from this basic situation, I have apply algorithm MD5. Presently give the real situation the assistance of figures

18. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS When we apply algorithm of MD5 on dynamic switch and reserve switch, both switches begin to spring up a message of confirmation from aggressor. after the general examination that algorithm of MD5 is great answer for anchoring our LAN as it gives greater security and unwavering quality

19. Conclusion After a detailed review of these protocols, we have concluded that GLBP outperforms HSRP and VRRP. It utilizes available resources more effectively than the other two protocols. When we consider the stability of networks or load balancing, GLBP gives the required provisions These culminations are so essential for choosing the best suitable redundancy protocol even when our network goes large. FHRPs provide cheaper and simple redundancy features for networks we have illustrated some well renowned FHRPs like HSRP, VRRP and GLBP using GNS3 network simulator. We have compared these protocols according to some useful parameters like bandwidth consumption, CPU utilization and convergence time . we also focused on developing a more effective mechanism to enhance the security of FHRP. FHRPs improvise for providing more security, we derived from our studies that MD5, due to its superior reliability and security, is a better solution. MD-5 hash function assists in validating the routers

20. Thank you