Rist Anti Julia 2020
Rist Anti Julia 2020
4th Dewi Khairani 5th Khodijah Hulliyah 6th Asep Taufik Muharram
Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Politeknik Negeri Jakarta
Hidayatullah Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia
Jakarta, Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia asep.muharram@tik.pnj.ac.id
dewi.khairani@gmail.com khodijah.hulliyah@uinjkt.ac.id
Abstract—In building network infrastructure, one of the internet network. Generally, an internet provider has two or
most important things is how the network can handle failure. more links to maintain if the main network or primary link is
Network providers, network operators, and other network interrupted or down, and one of them is used as a secondary
equipment manufacturers, have targeted network availability of link or backup link [3]. Besides that, network providers,
up to 99.999% ("5 nine" availability), which means that a network operators, and other network equipment
network is only allowed to experience interference for 5 minutes manufacturers have targeted network availability of up to
within one year. For this reason, it is necessary to have two or 99.999% ("5 nine" availability), which means that a network
more gateways connected in a network, because if one of the is only allowed to experience disturbances for 5 minutes
gateways is dead, the other gateways will immediately replace
within one year [4].
the dead gateways. This study will evaluate the performance of
the first-hop redundancy protocol (FHRP) on VRRP, HSRP, And to maintain the quality level of network services and
and GLBP to determine the performance comparison using the minimize failures in a network, it is necessary to implement a
QoS parameters (throughput, jitter, packet loss, dan downtime). redundancy protocol system or also known as FHRP (First
The data collection method was using a study of literature and Hop Redundancy Protocol) [5]. FHRP is used to provide two
simulation method with 8 stages (problem formulation, or more gateways that are connected to a network. So that if
conceptual model, input & output data, modelling, simulation, one gateway dies, another gateway will immediately replace
verification & validation, experimentation, and output the dead gateway [6]. There are three protocols included in
evaluation). The results of this study indicate that the GLBP has
FHRP, namely Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP),
better QoS parameters than VRRP and HSRP.
Hot Standby Routing Protocol (HSRP), and Gateway Load
Keywords—Performance Evaluation, FHRP, VRRP, HSRP, Balancing Protocol (GLBP) [7].
GLBP, Throughput, Jitter, Packet Loss, Downtime In a network, there are important components that are
useful for determining the communication channels that can
I. INTRODUCTION
pass messages from one node to another node to get to the
The rapidly developing communication technology leads destination node in a network, namely the routing protocol [8].
to an increase in the demand for applications and high-speed The routing protocol used in this study is BGP (Exterior
networks. Therefore, technology service providers are Gateway Protocol) because it is a type of EGP (Exterior
expected to be able to design and develop efficient solutions Gateway Protocol) routing protocol which is the protocol used
to support the high-speed network requirements of end-users to connect between Autonomous Systems (AS) which
[1]. Network availability is very much needed in the current recognizes other AS as neighbouring AS [9]. Besides, the
era of information technology. Various organizations and routing protocol used in EIGRP (Enhanced Interior Gateway
companies need a network to protect the running of the Routing Protocol), one of the IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol)
business from system damage, data loss/damage, and data routing protocols used to set the system contained in AS
processing errors. (Autonomous System) [10]. The BGP and EIGRP routing
In building network infrastructure, one of the most protocols are suitable routing protocols for large-scale
important things is how the network can handle failures. networks [11]. There is some dynamic routing protocol that
Given the work function of a router that works continuously, can be used in a network, and each routing protocol has
it is necessary to pay attention to the possibility of interference advantages and disadvantages of each [12].
with the router. This disruption will cut network availability, Based on the explanation above, the researcher intends to
so the department has to wait for technicians to solve evaluate the performance of the VRRP, HSRP, and GLBP
problems. This, of course, will take time, causing some redundancy protocols with the parameters of throughput,
activities to be delayed from all departments in a company [2]. jitter, packet loss, and downtime.
Many internet providers cannot guarantee 100% of the
internet network connection to be stable, and there is no
interference. Therefore to be able to keep the internet network
stable and prevent or reduce the risk of total downtime on the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on December 22,2020 at 04:44:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The 8th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2020)
On Virtual, October 23-24, 2020
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on December 22,2020 at 04:44:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The 8th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2020)
On Virtual, October 23-24, 2020
F. Verification and Validation The largest jitter value is shown in the last experiment with
At this stage, each scenario that has been designed will be an experimental time of 60 seconds, while the smallest jitter
tested to find out whether it is running by the provisions of the value is shown in the first experiment with an experimental
Conceptual Model, Input & Output Data, and Modeling time of 20 seconds.
stages. If at this stage an error occurs, a checking and repair The value of packet loss in scenario 3 in each experiment
process will be carried out. However, if there is no error at this and produces an average of 9%. The results of this experiment
stage, the simulation can be continued to the next stage. show that time can affect the packet loss value of a network.
G. Experimentation D. Scenario 4 HSRP Normal Condition
At this stage, the authors experimented on each previously The smallest throughput value is shown in the first
designed scenario. Experiments were carried out by sending experiment using windows size 2 Kbyte. In contrast, the
TCP packets in each scenario 5 times with different window largest throughput value is shown in the last experiment using
sizes, namely 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 Kbytes for 60 seconds to 32 Kbyte windows size.
measure throughput. After that, an experiment was carried out
by sending UDP packets in each scenario 5 times with The largest jitter value is shown in the last experiment with
different times, namely 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 seconds to an experimental time of 60 seconds, while the smallest jitter
measure jitter and packet loss, and then the link termination value is shown in the first experiment with an experimental
experiment was carried out on router R8 5 times on each time of 20 seconds.
protocol for measuring downtime. Each scenario has a total of The value of packet loss shows that the value obtained has
50 times. undergone insignificant changes. The average packet loss
value from the experimental results in scenario 4 is 5%.
IV. RESULT
E. Scenario 5 HSRP Link Termination on Router R8
A. Scenario 1 VRRP Normal Condition
The smallest throughput value is shown in the first
The smallest throughput value is shown in the first
experiment using windows size 2 Kbyte. In contrast, the
experiment using windows size 2 Kbyte. In contrast, the
largest throughput value is shown in the last experiment using
largest throughput value is shown in the last experiment using
32 Kbyte windows size.
32 Kbyte windows size.
The largest jitter value is shown in the last experiment with
The largest jitter value is shown in the third experiment
an experimental time of 60 seconds, while the smallest jitter
with an experimental time of 40 seconds, while the smallest
value is shown in the first experiment with an experimental
jitter value is shown in the fourth experiment with an
time of 20 seconds.
experimental time of 50 seconds.
The value of packet loss shows that the value obtained has
In all experiments, the value of packet loss has increased
undergone insignificant changes. The average packet loss
over a certain time; only one experiment got the smallest
value from the experimental results in scenario 5 is 5%.
value, namely 5% in the first experiment with an experiment
time of 20 seconds. The results of all downtime trials produce an average value
of 4.64 seconds. The results of this experiment show that each
B. Scenario 2 VRRP Link Termination on Router R8
time the downtime value is tried, the value of downtime
The smallest throughput value is shown in the first changes which is not significant.
experiment using windows size 2 Kbyte. In contrast, the
largest throughput value is shown in the last experiment using F. Scenario 6 HSRP Link Termination on Router R9
32 Kbyte windows size. The smallest throughput value is shown in the first
experiment using windows size 2 Kbyte. In contrast, the
The largest jitter value is shown in the last experiment with
largest throughput value is shown in the last experiment using
an experimental time of 60 seconds, while the smallest jitter
32 Kbyte windows size.
value is shown in the third experiment with an experimental
time of 40 seconds. The largest jitter value is shown in the last experiment with
an experimental time of 60 seconds, while the smallest jitter
The results of all packet loss experiments yielded an
value is shown in the third experiment with an experimental
average value of 8%. The results of this experiment show that
time of 40 seconds.
time can affect the packet loss value of a network.
The value of packet loss shows that the value obtained has
The results of all downtime trials produce an average value
undergone insignificant changes. The average packet loss
of 5.031 seconds. The results of this experiment show that the
value from the experimental results in scenario 6 is 6%.
VRRP protocol can overcome interference on the master
router. G. Scenario 7 GLBP Normal Condition
C. Scenario 3 VRRP Link Termination on Router R9 The smallest throughput value is shown in the first
experiment using windows size 2 Kbyte to get a value of 96.98
The smallest throughput value is shown in the first
Kbits/s. While the highest throughput value is shown in the
experiment using windows size 2 Kbyte. In contrast, the
last experiment using windows size 32 Kbyte, getting a value
largest throughput value is shown in the last experiment using
of 2002.8 Kbits/s.
32 Kbyte windows size with a value of 2017 Kbits/s.
The largest jitter value is shown in the last experiment with
an experimental time of 60 seconds, while the smallest jitter
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on December 22,2020 at 04:44:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The 8th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2020)
On Virtual, October 23-24, 2020
value is shown in the first experiment with an experimental intervals when the connection through the master router is
time of 20 seconds. disconnected, it shows a more stable GLBP throughput test
because there are no significant changes to the throughput test.
The value of packet loss shows that the value obtained has
undergone insignificant changes. The average packet loss
value from the experimental results in scenario 7 is 4%.
H. Scenario 8 GLBP Link Termination on Router R8
The smallest throughput value is shown in the first
experiment using windows size 2 Kbyte. In contrast, the
largest throughput value is shown in the last experiment using
32 Kbyte windows size.
The largest jitter value is shown in the second experiment
with an experimental time of 30 seconds, while the smallest
jitter value is shown in the third experiment with an
experimental time of 40 seconds.
The value of packet loss shows that the value obtained has
undergone insignificant changes. The average packet loss Fig. 3. Jitter value comparison chart
value from the experimental results in scenario 8 is 5%.
Figure 3 shows the comparison of the mean value of jitter
The results of all downtime trials produce an average value
for each protocol consisting of VRRP, HSRP, and GLBP. A
of 3.74 seconds. The results of this experiment also show that
network can be said to be good if it has a small jitter value.
each time the downtime value is tried, the value of downtime
The smaller the jitter value, the greater the data transmission
changes which is not significant.
process. GLBP has the best average jitter value and does not
I. Scenario 9 GLBP Link Termination on Router R9 have much difference with VRRP. Meanwhile, HSRP has the
The smallest throughput value is shown in the first largest jitter value, meaning that the results are not good when
experiment using windows size 2 Kbyte, which results in a compared to GLBP and VRRP.
value of 105.6 Kbits / s. In contrast, the largest throughput
value is shown in the last experiment using 32 Kbyte windows
size, which results in a value of 2114.6 Kbits / s.
The largest jitter value is shown in the last experiment with
an experimental time of 60 seconds, while the smallest jitter
value is shown in the first experiment with an experimental
time of 20 seconds.
The value of packet loss shows that the value obtained has
undergone insignificant changes. The average packet loss
value from the experimental results in scenario 7 is 4%.
V. EVALUATION
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on December 22,2020 at 04:44:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The 8th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2020)
On Virtual, October 23-24, 2020
REFERENCES
[1] A. B. Ali, M. Tabassum, and K. Mathew, "A Comparative Study of
IGP and EGP Routing Protocols, Performance Evaluation along Load
Balancing and Redundancy across Different AS," Int. MultiConference
Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. II, 2016.
[2] A. Mohamed et al., "Hot Standby Router Protocol for a Private
University in Malaysia," Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 4, no. 3, pp.
172–174, 2015.
[3] A. Fiade, M. A. Agustian, and S. U. Masruroh, "Analysis of Failover
Link System Performance in OSPF, EIGRP, RIPV2 Routing Protocol
with BGP," in 2019 7th International Conference on Cyber and IT
Service Management, CITSM 2019, 2019.
[4] U. Anwar, J. Teng, H. A. Umair, and A. Sikander, "Performance
Analysis and Functionality Comparison of FHRP Protocols," in 2019
Fig. 5. Packet Loss value comparison chart IEEE 11th International Conference on Communication Software and
Networks, ICCSN 2019, 2019, pp. 111–115.
Figure 5 shows the comparison of downtime values for [5] D. Suprijatmono and A. Siswadi, "Implementation of First Hop
each protocol. The smaller the downtime value, the faster the Redundancy Protocol (FHRP) on Data Networks to Increase Customer
routing protocol updates the routing table so that the QoS Availibility," Sainstech J. Penelit. dan Pengkaj. Sains dan Teknol., vol.
value will be better. The graph above shows that GLBP has 29, No. 2, no. 1410 –7104, 2019.
the best quality in updating the routing table or has the [6] R. Syahputra, R. Kurnia, and R. Ferdian, “Analisis Perancangan dan
advantage in handling when a network system is down, even Implementasi FHRP di Protokol Routing RIPv2 dan OSPF,” J. RESTI
(Rekayasa Sist. dan Teknol. Informasi), vol. Vol.4No. 1, 2020.
though the three protocols do not have too much difference in
[7] Z. U. Rahman et al., "Performance Evaluation of First Hop
value. Redundancy Protocols," J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci., vol. 7, no. 3, pp.
268–278, 2017.
VI. CONCLUSION
[8] S. U. Masruroh, F. Robby, and N. Hakiem, "Performance Evaluation
Based on the results of the performance evaluation that the of Routing Protocols RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP in an IPv6
author has conducted on each of the First Hop Redundancy Network," in 2016 International Conference on Informatics and
Computing, ICIC 2016, 2017, pp. 111–116.
Protocol (FHRP) with the parameters of throughput, jitter,
[9] O. Rachman, Panduan Lengkap Instalasi dan Konfigurasi Jaringan
packet loss, and downtime, it can be concluded that the GLBP LAN-WAN-Wireless-Fiber Optic Berbasis IoT Industry 4.0.
protocol has the best QoS value compared to the VRRP Yogyakarta: ANDI, 2019.
protocol and the HSRP protocol. Even though in the [10] S. U. Masruroh, A. Fiade, M. F. Iman, and Amelia, "Performance
throughput test, GLBP has the smallest throughput value. Evaluation of Routing Protocol RIPv2, OSPF, EIGRP With BGP," in
However, seen from the results of each scenario, the 2017 International Conference on Innovative and Creative Information
throughput value in GLBP remains stable and does not change Technology: Computational Intelligence and IoT, ICITech 2017, 2018,
vol. 2018–Janua, pp. 1–7.
too far when the link moving process occurs. Thus it can be
concluded that the GLBP protocol can minimize failure on a [11] A. Z. Al Ghivani, “Studi Perbandingan Routing Protokol BGP dan
EIGRP, Evaluasi Kinerja Performansi Pada Autonomous System
network, as seen from the results of downtime testing, which Berbeda,” J. Sist., 2018.
is obtained, which is better and faster in handling network [12] S. U. Masruroh, K. H. P. Widya, A. Fiade, and I. R. Julia, "Performance
failures. Evaluation DMVPN Using Routing Protocol RIP, OSPF, and EIGRP,"
in 2018 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service
Management, CITSM 2018, 2019.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on December 22,2020 at 04:44:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.