ARP, RARP, and ICMP
140 THE MULTI-PROTOCOL LABEL SWITCHING MPLS ARCHITECTURE
Table 6.3 FEC entry in each LFIB with label binding information.
LFIB Incoming
label Outgoing
label Next
hop Outgoing
interface
A –
62 LSR B
if0 B
62 15
LSR D if0
C –
15 LSR D
if2 D
15 60
LSR E if2
E 60
– LSR E
if0
to D, which uses it to update its entry in its LFIB. As a result, each entry in the LFIB of each LSR will be modified see Table 6.3.
For LSR E, the next hop is E itself. This indicates that the IP packets associated with the prefix x.0.0.0, y.0.0.0 will be forwarded to the local destination over if 0 using
their prefix. Once the labels have been distributed and the entries have been updated in the LFIBs,
the forwarding of an IP packet belonging to the FEC associated with the prefix x.0.0.0, y.0.0.0 is done using solely the labels. Let us assume that A receives an IP packet from
the non-MPLS IP domain 1 with a prefix x.0.0.0, y.0.0.0. A identifies that the packet’s IP address belongs to the FEC, and it looks up its LFIB to obtain the label value and the
outgoing interface. It sets the label value to 62, encapsulates it using the format shown in Figure 6.3, and forwards it to the outgoing interface if0. When the IP packet arrives at LSR
B, its label is extracted and looked up in B’s LFIB. The old label is replaced by the new one, which is 15, and the IP packet is forwarded to interface if0. LSR D follows exactly
the same procedure. When it receives the IP packet from B, it replaces its incoming label with the outgoing label, which is 60, and forwards it to interface if2. Finally, E forwards
the IP packet to its local destination. The same procedure applies for an IP packet with a prefix x.0.0.0, y.0.0.0 that arrives at C from the non-MPLS domain 2.
In Figure 6.6, we show the labels allocated by the LSRs. These labels are similar to the VPIVCI values in ATM. They have local significance; that is, each label is valid only for
Non-MPLS IP domain 1
A
C D
B if1
if0
if1 if1
if1 if1
if0 if2
if2
if2 if0
if0 if0
〈x.0.0.0, y.0.0.0〉
Non-MPLS IP domain 2
E
15 60
15 62
Figure 6.6 Label switched paths.
THE MULTI-PROTOCOL LABEL SWITCHING MPLS ARCHITECTURE 141
one link. The sequence of labels 62, 15, 60 form a path known as the label switched path LSP
. This path is analogous to a point-to-point ATM connection, which is defined by a sequence of VPIVCI values. An ATM connection is associated with two end devices,
whereas a label switched path is associated with a FEC. Several label switched paths are typically associated with the same FEC, forming a tree diagram see Figure 6.6. Each
LSP has an ingress LSR and an egress LSR. For instance, in Figure 6.6, LSRs A and E are the ingress and egress LSRs, respectively, for the LSP from the LSR A to LSR E.
Likewise, LSRs C and E are ingress and egress LSRs for the LSP from LSR C to LSR E.
Label switching eliminates the CPU-intensive table look-up in the FIB, necessary to determine the next hop router of an IP packet. A table look-up in the LFIB is not as
time-consuming since an LFIB is considerably smaller than a FIB. Since the introduction of label switching, however, several CPU-efficient algorithms for carrying out table look-
ups in the FIB were developed. This did not diminish the importance of label switching since it was seen as a means of introducing QoS in the IP network.
One way that QoS can be introduced in the network is to associate each IP packet with a priority. This priority can be carried in the 3-bit experimental field of the label
encapsulation see Figure 6.3. Priorities can be assigned by an MPLS edge node. Labeled IP packets within an LSR are served according to their priority as in the case of an ATM
switch. Recall that, in ATM networks, each VC connection is associated with a QoS category. An ATM switch can determine the QoS of an incoming cell from its VPIVCI
value, and accordingly it can queue the cell into the appropriate QoS queue. An ATM switch maintains different QoS queues for each output interface. These queues are served
using a scheduling algorithm, so that VC connections can be served according to their requested QoS. A similar queueing structure can now be introduced in an IP router. IP
packets can now be queued at an output interface according to their priority, and they can be transmitted out in an order determined by a scheduler.