Ontology of QoS for Comparative Analysis of Dynamic

Network Protocols OSPFv3 and RIPng in File-sharing

Abdul Aziz Abdullah

1,2

, Agus Setiawan

, Refirman Sutan Mangiang

and Nur Fauzi Soelaiman

1,2

Department of Computer and Informatics Engineering, Politeknik Negeri Jakarta, Campus UI, Depok, Indonesia

Fakulti Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia

Keywords: File Sharing, OSPFv3, QoS, RIPng, IPv6, Wireshark

Abstract: The quality of services offered is vital in file quality requirements for good reasons. All information must be

as expected. An Ontology of QoS for the investigation and analysis of network protocols, is the presentation

of performance, the results of sampling data from several measurements of QoS parameters. The ability of

IPv6 specifications that have a higher capacity than previous versions, as part of the media in sharing

resources. It affects the facilities offered in supporting file-sharing services. File-sharing services are

activities where Internet users can share files with other internet users by providing data files that first

upload a file to the server computer. Then other Internet users can download the file. The dynamic routing

protocol in addressing IPv6 RIPng and OSPFv3 can affect performance due to the testing required with QoS

parameters. The protocol performance testbed technique is finished by analyzing the results of the process

of downloading documents that are done from the server, then observed using Wireshark. The test results in

general, the quality of QoS services in the RIPng routing protocol is slightly better than OSPFv3 to be

implemented in file-sharing services.

1 INTRODUCTION

The quality of services offered is vital in file quality

requirements for good reasons, and all information

must be as expected. In this case, it is critical to the

design. It breaks down to determine the best quality

for sending data in the form of file-sharing with

parameters that determine parameters in QoS

(Quality of Service). The essential objective of QoS

is to give stream need, including devoted transfer

speed, controlled jitter, and latency (required by

some intelligent and delicate deferral traffic), and

improved misfortune attributes (Fahmi,

2018)(Wulandari, 2016). The development of data

communication services, for example, voice (VoIP)

and video gushing on systems that have constrained

cradle space and data transfer capacity. That is cause

traffic loads, making VoIP users and video

streaming require networks that can provide Quality

of Service (QoS) in meeting user needs (Dian et al.,

2017).

Essential philosophical research in the building

has been applied to a few sorts of studies to consider

ontology to be a functioning component as a point of

view, firmly identified with the function of the

system, manifested through a prototype developed

(Rusdi et al., 2019). The QoS ontology approach to

network protocol investigation and analysis takes the

form of performance presentation, from the results

of sampling data from several QoS parameter

measurements. The QoS problem raised in the

research proposal is whether, between dynamic

routing protocols in one type and different types,

there are differences in performance. The results of

the analysis of the investigation of the performance

and characteristics of each dynamic protocol will be

used as a basis for thinking in obtaining a gap from

each dynamic routing protocol between OSPFv3 and

RIPng based on the foundation of QoS ontology. In

this way, gathering verifiable usage records and

directing QoS expectations, which do not require

additional hard work, turns into an interesting

methodology. Given the above checks, to provide

QoS data to the application designer, we must

provide a thorough examination of the approaching

QoS estimates (Zhang and Lyu, 2017). The results

of the study will make a basic reason for the use of

dynamic routing protocols for certain conditions.

Whether the routing protocol can affect the files

received, this research designs and analyze to prove

Abdullah, A., Setiawan, A., Mangiang, R. and Soelaiman, N.

Ontology of QoS for Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Network Protocols OSPFv3 and RIPng in File-sharing.

DOI: 10.5220/0009892900002905

In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar (ASAIS 2019), pages 83-89

ISBN: 978-989-758-468-8

the best quality and provides information on the

results of investigating QoS parameters.

2 RELATED LITERATURE

REVIEW

The important in research is a literature review to

explore the problem of Comparative Analysis of

Dynamic Network Protocols using QoS rationale,

and things that are reviewed are Computer networks,

RIPng, OSPFv3 protocols, FTP, and QoS parameters

The router is a computer network device used for

sending data packets to its destination through a

process known as routing. Routers are used to

connect two or more network groups using different

media, such as from Ethernet to Token Ring. The

routing process takes place in the third layer of the

seven OSI-ISO standard layers.

Nodes store all their data about routes in their

routing tables (Glabbeek et al., 2016). Routing is the

process of choosing a path on the network used to

send data packets to the destination address. The

router makes routing decisions based on the

destination IP address of the packet (Sun et al.,

2019). Routing is a term used to select packet paths

from one network to another network that is

connected through a router (Zhang and Lyu,

2017)(Ramezani and Jahanshahi, 2017). Routers

only pay attention to the destination network and the

best path to get to the destination network. Routing

on the Internet is generally affected by IP addresses.

The new component of the Internet is that the hosts

end up and switch the same part of the family tends

to, and this greatly influences the directing. The

location family is known as the IPv4 address family

for 32-bit addresses, and the IPv6 address family for

128-bit addresses (Medhi and Ramasamy, 2018).

Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is a dynamic

steering convention. This convention is along these

lines named an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP).

This convention utilizes the Distance-Vector

Routing algorithm. RIP has likewise been adjusted

for use in IPv6 systems, known as the RIPng

standard (cutting edge RIP), published in RFC 2080.

OSPFv3 used to support IPV6 according to RFC

(Request for Comments) 5340 provisions have a

significant difference with the previous version

besides modification of Link State Advertising

(LSA) to support IPV6 is the use of Router-ID to

identify neighbors, use local link addresses to find

neighbors. Dijkstra's algorithm is used to determine

the shortest path from source to destination in LSDB

using the accumulated cost of links on the track

(Dhruba Ghosh and Abstract, 2016). Open Shortest

Path First (OSPF) is further a modification to

support version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6).

File transfer protocol (FTP) allows one computer

user to be able to send or receive files to devices on

a networked computer. This service provides

internet users to upload or download files between

local computers and other computers connected to a

computer network. FTP applications aim is 1. to

promote file sharing (computer programs and or

data), 2. to encourage indirect or implicit (via

programs) use of remote computers, 3. to protect

users from variations in file storage systems among

the host, and 4. for reliable and efficient data

transfers. FTP, although it can be used directly by

users at the terminal, is designed primarily for use

by programs.

3 METHODOLOGY OF

INVESTIGATION

The investigation is carried out after the design of

the test system series, and the realization process is

complete. The first step is to install and connect the

router, followed by configuration. The next step is

capturing the data packet using the Wireshark

monitoring application. Tabulating and converting it

to a graphical display. The fourth stage analyzes the

results of testing the system that has been in

graphical form. Obtaining and drawing conclusions

from the investigation of each QoS parameter is a

process that aims to ascertain whether there are links

and gaps between the routing protocol and the

specifications of each protocol, through

measurement of the fundamental thought of QoS

ontology.

Testbed Routing

END

Installing Ubuntu OS

on the server

Investigation

Testbed

Of QoS

START

Installation OpenWRT

OS on router

Configuration RIPng

and OSPFv3

Analisys and Discusion of

Result of Testbed

Installation

of Wireshark

for PC Monitoring

Installing FTP and

FileZilla

Tabulation,

Figure 1 Describes the methodology flow

ASAIS 2019 - Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar

The server (which has FTP and FileZilla

installed) is used to save the file from being

downloaded. The router uses four routers, and then

uses RIPng and OSPFv3 routing protocol

configurations alternately. On the client-side, it will

accept file transfers from the server, and everything

that happens based on QoS parameters is monitored

using Wireshark software. Investigation in the

corridor of QoS parameters to testbed the file-

sharing process, the realization for the testbed is

divided into several stages. Figure 1 is a block flow

chart explaining the steps of the system testing

methodology realization.

Methodology for the realization of investigation

through the testbed of route processing using the

RIPng and OSPFv3 protocol methods.

4 QoS PARAMETER AND

ALGORITHM

QoS parameters are the basis for measuring the

quality of packet network service quality. And base

on document of QoS from the Internet Engineering

Task Force (IETF) directing to the calculation of

QoS parameters, and will be described to logical

thinking from the algorithm below.

4.1 QoS Parameter

The Delay. One of the principle QoS factors in voice

transmission is the apparent postponement by the

client. To permit typical discussion over the

network, this defers must be kept practically

consistent and underneath as far as possible. If a

start to finish delay is excessively high, intelligent

correspondence is troublesome or outlandish. A few

examinations on delays have been completed and

announced in the logical writing; they lead to the

accompanying ends in the ITU-T Recommendation

record (ETSI-TIPHON, 1999). This deferral is the

entirety of a few variables. A few components are

brought about by terminal equipment (for example,

codec delays or buffering), others are brought about

by networks (such as transmission delays) (ITU-T,

2003). All data communication through a computer

network significantly experiences latency or Delay.

And for Standard delays that are permitted based

on TIPHON (Telecommunications and Internet

Protocol Harmonization Over Networks):

Table 1: Standard delays based on TIPHON

Latency Category Large Delay

Very good < 150 ms

Good 150 s/d 300 ms

Medium 300 s/d 450 ms

Poor > 450 ms

(TIPHON)

The Throughput. Throughput is the real

transmission capacity estimated by a particular time

unit used to move information of a specific size. The

best download time is the document size isolated by

transmission capacity. While the whole time is the

record size separated by throughput. The value of

data transfer consumption or bandwidth is calculated

in units of bits per second (bps) between the server

and client at a specific time. And the definition of

bandwidth is the width of the frequency range used

by the signal in the transmission media. It was

concluded that bandwidth is the maximum capacity

of the communication channel used to transfer data

in seconds. Function to calculate transaction data.

The concept of bandwidth is not enough to explain

network speed and what happens on the network.

For this reason, the concept of Throughput emerged.

Throughput is the actual bandwidth measured at a

specific time size in a day using certain computer

network routes when downloading files.

The Jitter. Jitter is a variation of delay, which is

the difference in arrival intervals between packets at

the destination terminal. The Variations of influence

jitter in traffic load and the magnitude of collisions

between packets (congestion) always exist in the

network. The term end-to-end delay is used as a sum

of all propagation, handling, serialization, and lining

delays in the way as appeared. Jitter characterizes

the variety in the postponement. In best-exertion

systems, spread and serialization delays are fixed,

while handling and lining delays are eccentric

(Radivojevic and Matavulj, 2017). The higher the

traffic load in the network will cause, the higher the

chance of congestion so that the value of the jitter

will be even higher.

Permissible jitter standards are based on

TIPHON see table 2 below:

Table 2: Standard TIPHON for Jitter

Degradation category Peak Jitter

Very good 0 ms

Good 0 s/d 75 ms

Medium 75 s/d 125 ms

Poor 125 s/d 225 ms

(TIPHON)

Ontology of QoS for Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Network Protocols OSPFv3 and RIPng in File-sharing

The Packet loss. Packet loss is the number of

packets lost during the transmission process to the

destination. Lost packets occur when one or more

data packets that pass through a network fail to reach

their goal.

And for packet loss standards that are allowed

based on TIPHON, see table 3 below:

Table 3: Standard packet loss based on TIPHON

Degradation category Packet Loss

Very good 0 %

Good 3 %

Medium 15 %

Poor 25 %

(TIPHON)

4.2 QoS Parameter Calculation

Algorithm

The algorithm consists of two phases, as describing

and formulae of the component. The QoS parameter

consists of four elements, namely, Delay,

Throughput, Jitter, and Packet Loss. Based on the

document RFC 3644, RFC 5624, and RFC 5777, the

paper mentions how to manage these QoS

parameters (Snir et al., 2003) (J. Korhonen,

Tschofenig and Davies, 2009) (Korhonen et al.,

2010). The algorithm below describes the processing

of the component calculation.

The calculation of Delay is described in the

rationale of the equation algorithm as follows:

Delay = Packet Arrival time - Packet Start time,

and the equation becomes:

 (1)

And the total Delay is:

 

∑







, substitute equation (1) to this

equation, the equation becomes:

 

∑

 





 (2)

where D: Delay, Dt: total Delay, PAt: Packet Arrival

time, and PSt: Packet Start time.

Next formulae is Average Delay = total Delay / total

Package received, equation becomes:

Davg=Dt/TPrec (3)

TPrec=

∑

i





(4)

Substitute equation (4), and equation (2) to equation

(3), the equation becomes:

Davg =

∑

 





 /

∑

i





(5)

where Davg: average of Delay, Dt: total Delay,

Tprec: Total Packets received, Pri: Packets received

to i.

The algorithm to get the total variation of Delay is

Total Variasi Delay, TvD = (D

- D

) + (D

- D

) +

- D

) + ... + (D

– D

(n-1),

and formulae becomes:

TvD 

∑















(6)

where TVD: Total Delay variations, Dn: Delay n,

and Dn-1: Delay n-1.

The following is the Throughput calculation that

is described in the equation algorithm as follows:

Throughput = Total data packets successfully passed

/ Time of observation; the equation becomes:

Thpn = Tdpp / Tobs (7)

 

∑















/

∑







, (8)

where is Thpn: Throughput, and Tdpp: number of

data packets that successfully passed the nth, units in

bit b, Pdpn is: Data packets that successfully passed,

units in bit b, and then Tobs is: Length of time

observed, units in seconds s.

The next algorithm is the Jitter, the equation as

follows: Jitter = Total variation delay / (Total

packets received -1).

Jt = TvD ⁄ (TPrec -1) (9)

Substitute equation (6), and equation (4) to

equation (9), equation becomes:

Jt =

∑















/ (

∑

i





-1)

(10)

and where is Jt: Jitter, TvD: Total variation of delay.

And how the algorithm for calculating packet

loss, the answer is as follows: Packet loss = (Data

packet successfully passed - Data packet received) /

Data packet sent x 100% or Plo = ((Pdpn – Pprec) /

Pdst) x 100%, becomes:

Plo =((

∑















 -

∑

i





-1) /

∑

  





)) x 100% (11)

All the QoS parameter equation algorithms

mentioned above are used to investigate and process

data obtained from the testbed results, displayed in

the form of line graphs.

5 TESTBED AND ANALYSIS

Testbed Results from The measurement of QoS

parameters of the routing protocols is performed

ASAIS 2019 - Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar

using data capture from WireShark. The results are

tabulated and then processed into a graph to

facilitate analysis. The results graph and analysis is

shown in the following view:

Figure 2: Delay Diagram of RIPng and OSPFv3 protocols

Delays in the RIPng and OSPFv3 routing

protocols were found to show no significant

differences. RIPng has a better delay value with an

average value of 0.112 milliseconds than OSPFv3

which has an average value of 0.113 milliseconds

because the processing time is slightly longer in

OSPFv3, such as doing a metric calculation

Figure 3: Throughput Diagram of RIPng and OSPFv3

protocols

The Throughput that is looks significantly

different from small to large data. And from the

results that prove RIPng has a not better average

throughput value of 95.777 Mbit / sec compared to

OSPFv3, which has an average value of 94.296 Mbit

/ sec. According to the working principle of

OSPFv3, which provides data packets that are not

sent usually or packet loss, it will be sent back from

the data packet. The Throughput that looks very

significantly different in sending from small data to

large data, results that prove OSPFv3 has kind of

better.

Figure 4: Jitter Diagram of RIPng and OSPFv3 protocols

The jitter obtained on RIPng and OSPFv3 does

not show a significant difference. Even partially

coinciding line graphs appear, but where RIPng has

a better average value of 0,00012 milliseconds

compared to the OSPFv3 protocol which has an

average value of 0,00013 milliseconds because the

RIPng jitter value is smaller than OSPFv3.

Jitter is a variation of the delay, the difference in

the arrival interval between packets at the

destination terminal. Variations influence jitter's

existence in packet traffic load and the magnitude of

collisions between packages. The subsequent

analysis is a result of Packet Loss.

Figure 5: Packet Loss Diagram of RIPng and OSPFv3

protocols

Package Loss obtained from the results of the

RIPng Testbed has a smaller average percentage

value of 0.00005% compared to OSPFv3 with an

average value of 0.00025%, so packet loss has a

0.1

0.11

0.12

100 200 300 400 500

Milisecond

Delay

RIPng OSPFv3

100

100 200 300 400 500

Milisecond

Throughput

RIPng OSPFv3

0.0002

0.0004

0.0006

100 200 300 400 500

Milisecond

Jitter

RIPng OSPFv3

0.0002

0.0004

0.0006

100 200 300 400 500

PacketLoss

RIPng OSPFv3

Ontology of QoS for Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Network Protocols OSPFv3 and RIPng in File-sharing

tremendous amount will affect throughput, delay,

and jitter.

The results, in general, the Quality of Service RIPng

routing protocol, is better than OSPFv3 to be

implemented in the file sharing service.

The data and result shown above is the process

and results of the testbed, then the research conducts

an investigative analysis with the following results:

The results of smaller delay measurements occur

in the RIPng protocol compared to OSPFv3, and

this is a state of network performance on the

RIPng routing protocol that is better than

OSPFv3.

In the comparison Throughput graph, it appears

that the larger the file, the higher the throughput,

can be seen in Figure 3. This provides an

overview of network performance shown by

throughput.

The smaller the Jitter test, the better the network.

In the graph that evaluates the RIPng routing

protocol with lower jitter values compared to the

OSPFv3 routing protocol, the RIPng

performance is not better than OSPFv3.

In testing, the Packet loss obtained on OSPFv3 is

relatively more significant at the time of

interruption of the queued data packet.

The measurement results of a smaller delay occur

in RIPng compared to OSPFv3, and this is a state

of RIPng routing network performance that is

better than OSPFv3. The factors that cause

RIPng delays are better because the processing

time is slightly shorter than the OSPFv3 routing

method. Such as performing metric calculations.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORKS

Conclude that the results of QoS measurement data

analysis are based on RIPng, and OSPFv3 routing

protocols in file-sharing services using four routers

found that QoS performance increased with different

file sizes directly proportional.

The results of QoS testbed the RIPng routing

protocol is slightly better than OSPFv3 to be

implemented in file-sharing services. They were

becoming a new thought to investigate alternative

algorithms for Dijkstra routing.

In the future, there are several issues to enhance

further research, the following are those that can be

used for new research: expand discussions about

routing, comparisons between routing methods, on

one or two different types of ad hoc protocols and

research on security issues. Delivery and routing

media can vary; further analysis can be developed

by adding a router or replacing it with a mini cellular

router device with a different type, with different

routing protocols.

REFERENCES

Dhruba Ghosh, S. K. and P. B. and Abstract (2016) ‘A

Novel Solution of Dijkstra’s Algorithm for Shortest

Path Routing with Polygonal Obstacles in Wireless

Networks Using Fuzzy Mathematics,’ Proceedings of

the Second International Conference on Computer and

Communication Technologies, pp. 489–497. DOI:

10.1007/978-81-322-2523-2.

Dian, L. et al. (2017) ‘Analisis QoS Differentiated Service

Pada Jaringan MPLS Menggunakan Algoritma

Threshold’, JTIIK. SatyaWacana, Indonesia, 4(4), pp.

227–236. doi: 10.25126/jtiik.201744427.

ETSI-TIPHON (1999) Telecommunications and Internet

Protocol Harmonization Over Networks (TIPHON);

General aspects of Quality of Service (QoS).

Valbonne.

Fahmi, H. (2018) ‘Analisis QoS (Quality of Service)

Pengukuran Delay, Jitter, Packet Lost Dan Throughput

Untuk Mendapatkan Kualitas Kerja Radio Streaming

Yang Baik Analysis QoS (Quality of Service)

Measurement of Delay, Jitter, Packet Loss and

Throughput To Get Good Quali,’ 7(2), pp. 98–105.

Glabbeek, R. Van et al. (2016) ‘Modelling and verifying

the AODV routing protocol,’ Distributed Computing.

Berlin, German: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

(December 2015). DOI: 10.1007/s00446-015-0262-7.

ITU-T (2003) ‘SERIES G: TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS

AND MEDIA, DIGITAL SYSTEMS, AND

NETWORKS.’ ITU-T Recommendation G.114.

J. Korhonen, E., Tschofenig, H. and Davies, E. (2009)

RFC 5624 - Quality of Service Parameters for Usage

with Diameter. Available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5624 (Accessed: 3

November 2019).

Korhonen, J. et al. (2010) RFC 5777 - Traffic

Classification and Quality of Service (QoS) Attributes

for Diameter. Available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5777 (Accessed: 3

November 2019).

Medhi, D. and Ramasamy, K. (2018) Routing in the

Global Internet. 2nd ed, Network Routing. 2nd eds.

The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Networking 2018.

DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-800737-2.00012-0.

Radivojevic, M. and Matavulj, P. (2017) Quality of

Service Implementation, The Emerging WDM EPON.

Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-54224-9.

Ramezani, M. and Jahanshahi, M. (2017) ‘Load-aware

multicast routing in multi-radio wireless mesh

networks using FCA-CMAC neural network,’

Computing. Austria: Springer Vienna, 100(5), pp.

473–501. DOI: 10.1007/s00607-017-0579-0.

ASAIS 2019 - Annual Southeast Asian International Seminar

Rusdi, J. F. et al. (2019) ‘Drone Tracking Modelling

Ontology for Tourist Behavior’, IOP Conf. Series:

Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1201 (2019) 012032,

(ICERA), pp. 159–165.

Snir, Y. et al. (2003) RFC 3644 - Policy Quality of Service

(QoS) Information Model. Available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3644 (Accessed: 3

November 2019).

Sun, C. et al. (2019) ‘A Routing Protocol Combining Link

State and Distance Vector for GEO-GEO Satellite

Backbone Network,’ Mobile Networks and

Applications. Mobile Networks and Applications,

Springer Nature. DOI: 10.1007/s11036-019-01339-y.

Wulandari, R. (2016) ‘Analisis QoS Pada Jaringan

Internet ( Studi kasus: UPT Loka Uji Teknik

Penambangan Jampang Kulon – LIPI )’, Jurnal Teknik

Informatika dan Sistem Informasi. Sukabumi,

Indonesia, 2(2), pp. 162–172.

Zhang, Y. and Lyu, M. R. (2017) QoS Prediction in Cloud

and Service Computing. Singapore: SpringerBriefs in

Computer Science. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-5278-1.

Ontology of QoS for Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Network Protocols OSPFv3 and RIPng in File-sharing