Communication Network Comnet Report

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

SECTION A: NETWORK SIMULATION MODELS/SIMULATIONS ................................. 2

CHANNEL UTILIZATION .................................................................................................. 2

WAN CLOUDS FRAME DELAY BY VC ........................................................................... 3

WAN CLOUDS FRAME COUNTS BY VC ........................................................................ 4

WAN CLOUDS ACCESS LINK STATS ............................................................................. 6

MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES MESSAGE DELAY ................................................ 7

MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES MESSAGE DELIVERED ....................................... 9

Simulation of p2p model .......................................................................................................... 11

With Edinburgh-London ...................................................................................................... 11

Without Edinburgh-London ................................................................................................. 12

Summary: ................................................................................................................................. 12

SECTION B: TECHNICAL REPORT .................................................................................... 13

Conclusion: .............................................................................................................................. 18

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 19

Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 20

List of Figure: Figure 1: Channel Utilization..................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 WAN Cloud Frame Delay BY VC .............................................................................. 3 Figure 3: WAN CLOUD Frame Count by VC .......................................................................... 5 Figure 4: WAN CLOUD Access Link Stats .............................................................................. 6 Figure 5: MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES MESSAGE DELAY .................................... 8 Figure 6: MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES MESSAGE DELIVERED ......................... 10 Figure 7: Comparison of P2P Model with & with E-L Link ................................................... 17

1

Introduction This report reflects the result of the given scenario of both the WAN and p2p model based on the COMNET III software. Based on the result generated by the software the graphs are created with the of Microsoft Excel software. Normally the graphs are created to compare the different result generated by the COMNET software for the each WAN and p2p model.

The main objectives of this report are listed below:

• To design the WAN & p2p model using COMNET III. • To list out the difference between result of two model. • To study the result of WAN & p2p model. • To present the technical report of CBS bank model. • Comparing the result and find the better one.

2

SECTION A: NETWORK SIMULATION MODELS/SIMULATIONS

CHANNEL UTILIZATION WAN11071425

LINKS: CHANNEL UTILIZATION

REPLICATION 1 FROM 20.0 TO 210.0 SECONDS

FRAMES TRANSMISSION DELAY (MS) %

LINK DELIVERED RST/ERR AVERAGE STD DEV MAXIMUM UTIL

_____________________ _________ ______ _________ _________ _________ _____

Edinburgh University.E 222 0 0.006 0.000 0.007 0.0007

Southampton University 228 0 0.055 0.004 0.061 0.0063

Liverpool University.L 234 0 0.006 0.000 0.007 0.0007

Figure 1: Channel Utilization

0

50

100

150

200

250

Delivered RST/EDR Average STD DEV Maximum UTIL

Frame Transmission Dealay (MS) %

Links: Channel Utilization

Edinburgh.Edinburgh CS Southampton.Southampto Liverpool.Liverpool FD

3

WAN CLOUDS FRAME DELAY BY VC Compuware COMNET III Release 2.5.2.814 Tue Jan 08 18:45:33 2013 PAGE 3

WAN11071425

WAN CLOUDS: FRAME DELAY BY VC


CLOUD: FRAME DELAY (MS) BURST SIZE (kb)

VC AVG STD MAX AVG MAX

______________________ _______ _______ _______ ____________ ____________

WAN Cloud

Edinburgh-Southampto 26 1 29 1 1

Southampton-Liverpoo 26 1 29 1 1

Liverpool-Edinburgh 25 1 29 1 1

Southampton-Edinburg 26 1 29 1 1

Edinburgh-Liverpool 26 2 29 1 1

Liverpool-Southampto 26 1 29 1 1

Figure 2 WAN Cloud Frame Delay BY VC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4

WAN CLOUDS FRAME COUNTS BY VC WAN11071425

WAN CLOUDS: FRAME COUNTS BY VC


CLOUD: FRAMES / KILOBITS

VC: FRAMES ACCEPTED DROPPED

KILOBITS NORMAL DE NORMAL DE

______________________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

WAN Cloud (TOTAL KILOBITS TRANSMITTED = 116 )

Edinburgh-Southa Frm 54 0 0 0

kb 18 0 0 0

Southampton-Live Frm 60 0 0 0

kb 20 0 0 0

Liverpool-Edinbu Frm 57 0 0 0

kb 19 0 0 0

Southampton-Edin Frm 54 0 0 0

kb 18 0 0 0

Edinburgh-Liverp Frm 57 0 0 0

kb 19 0 0 0

Liverpool-Southa Frm 60 0 0 0

kb 20 0 0 0

5

Figure 3: WAN CLOUD Frame Count by VC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6

WAN CLOUDS ACCESS LINK STATS WAN11071425

WAN CLOUDS: ACCESS LINK STATS


CLOUD: FRAMES BUFFER (BYTES) % UTIL

ACCESS LINK (ENTRY) ACCEPTED DROPPED MAX AVG STD

(EXIT)

________________________ __________ _________ ______ ______ ______ ______

WAN Cloud

Edinburgh Entry 111 0 N/A N/A N/A 0.45

Exit 111 0 54 0 3 0.45

Southampton Entry 114 0 N/A N/A N/A 0.47

Exit 114 0 54 0 3 0.47

Liverpool Entry 117 0 N/A N/A N/A 0.48

Exit 117 0 54 0 3 0.48

Figure 4: WAN CLOUD Access Link Stats

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

7

MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES MESSAGE DELAY WAN11071425

MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES: MESSAGE DELAY


ORIGIN / MSG SRC NAME: MESSAGES MESSAGE DELAY

DESTINATION LIST ASSEMBLED AVERAGE STD DEV MAXIMUM

______________________ _________ ____________ ____________ ____________

Edinburgh University.Edinburgh PC1 / src Edinburgh NV_E-S:

Southampton Universi 9 354.429 MS 0.000 MS 354.429 MS

Edinburgh University.Edinburgh PC2 / src Edinburgh NV_E-L:

Liverpool University 10 354.132 MS 0.000 MS 354.132 MS

Edinburgh University.Edinburgh Resp / src Edinburgh Message Resp:

ECHO 0 0.000 MS 0.000 MS 0.000 MS

Southampton University.Southampton PC1 / src Southampton NV_S-L:


Southampton University.Southamton PC2 / src Southampton NV_S-E:

Edinburgh University 9 354.421 MS 0.000 MS 354.421 MS

Southampton University.Southampton Resp / src Southampton Message Resp:

ECHO 0 0.000 MS 0.000 MS 0.000 MS

Liverpool University.Liverpool PC1 / src Liverpool NV_L-S:


Liverpool University.Liverpool PC2 / src Liverpool NV_L-E:


Liverpool University.Liverpool Resp / src Liverpool Message Resp:

ECHO 0 0.000 MS 0.000 MS 0.000 MS

8

Figure 5: MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES MESSAGE DELAY

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

MESSAGES ASSEMBLED

MESSAGE DELAY AVERAGE

MESSAGE DELAY STD DEV

MESSAGE DELAY MAXIMUM

9

MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES MESSAGE DELIVERED WAN11071425

MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES: MESSAGE DELIVERED


ORIGIN / MSG SRC NAME: MESSAGES MESSAGE DELAY

DESTINATION LIST ASSEMBLED AVERAGE STD DEV MAXIMUM

______________________ _________ ____________ ____________ ____________

Edinburgh University.Edinburgh PC1 / src Edinburgh NV_E-S:


Edinburgh University.Edinburgh PC2 / src Edinburgh NV_E-L:


Edinburgh University.Edinburgh Resp / src Edinburgh Message Resp:

ECHO 0 0.000 MS 0.000 MS 0.000 MS

Southampton University.Southampton PC1 / src Southampton NV_S-L:


Southampton University.Southamton PC2 / src Southampton NV_S-E:


Southampton University.Southampton Resp / src Southampton Message Resp:

ECHO 0 0.000 MS 0.000 MS 0.000 MS

Liverpool University.Liverpool PC1 / src Liverpool NV_L-S:


Liverpool University.Liverpool PC2 / src Liverpool NV_L-E:


Liverpool University.Liverpool Resp / src Liverpool Message Resp:

ECHO 0 0.000 MS 0.000 MS 0.000 MS

10

Figure 6: MESSAGE + RESPONSE SOURCES MESSAGE DELIVERED

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

MESSAGES ASSEMBLED

MESSAGE DELAY AVERAGE

MESSAGE DELAY STD DEV

MESSAGE DELAY MAXIMUM

11

Simulation of p2p model

With Edinburgh-London P2P11071425





_____________________ _________ ______ _________ _________ _________ _____

ManchesterLan 796 0 0.084 0.016 0.113 0.0333

EdinburghLan 899 0 0.010 0.002 0.012 0.0043

Manchester-Edinburgh

FROM RouterMan 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000

FROM RouterEdin 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000

Manchester-London

FROM RouterLondon 397 0 71.948 16.216 102.500 14.29

FROM RouterMan 399 0 72.561 16.546 102.500 14.48

Edinburgh-London


FROM RouterEdin 450 0 73.367 16.545 102.500 16.50

LondonLan 1697 0 0.084 0.016 0.113 0.0713

12

Without Edinburgh-London P2P11071425





_____________________ _________ ______ _________ _________ _________ _____

ManchesterLan 852 0 0.084 0.016 0.113 0.0358

EdinburghLan 820 0 0.010 0.002 0.012 0.0039

Manchester-Edinburgh

FROM RouterMan 409 0 73.225 16.983 102.500 14.97

FROM RouterEdin 411 0 73.285 16.408 101.667 15.06

Manchester-London


FROM RouterMan 835 0 72.644 16.839 102.500 30.33

LondonLan 1671 0 0.084 0.016 0.113 0.0705

Summary: From the above mentioned graph and report the differences between WAN and P2P

model is determined. Reliability, accuracy, cost effectiveness and efficiency is the major term

to distinguish between the WAN & P2P model. Thus, WAN Cloud model is more beneficial

to use then the P2P model.

13

SECTION B: TECHNICAL REPORT

1. Describe briefly the structure of this WAN model.

Form the WAN model there we can find the three different LAN connected

with point to point link using router. Manchester1 processing node is set to produce 2

msg/m which is connected with message source named msgman1 which generate two

messages per minute and inter-arrival time of message is average of 30 seconds.

Again ManchesterATMs is capable to generate 120msg/m and linked with

msgManchester which is also configured to generate 120msg/m and inter-arrival time

is 0.5 sec. Manchester LAN is CSMA/CD with bandwidths of 4MB and the router of

Cisco 7010sp.

Edinburgh1 processing node is also set to the amount message as of the

manchester1 processing node and is connected with message source named msgEdin1

which generate two messages per minute and inter-arrival time of message is average

of 30 seconds. Again EdinburghATMs is capable to generate 120msg/m and

connected to msgEdin which is designed to generate 120 msg/m and inter-arrival time

is 0.5 sec. Edinburgh LAN is FDDI basic and with bandwidths of 4MB and linked

with router is Cisco 7010sp.

Lastly, In this WAN model there is another LAN named London LAN which

is connected with London processing node and router London. Router of London is

Cisco 7010sp. London processing node is connected with response source named

Authorization and it is used to authorize all the data in London LAN.

2. What is the type of each LAN (ManchesterLAN, EdinburghLAN, and LondonLAN)?

Ans:-

• Manchester LAN- CSMA/CD

• Edinburgh LAN- FDDI / Token Ring

• London LAN- CSMA/CD

CSMA/CD: - carriers sense multiple access/collision detection.

FDDI: Fiber Distributed Data Interface.

14

3. What is the type of each router (RouterMan, RouterEdin, and RouterLondon) ?

Ans: -

• Manchester Router. This networking device is set to a Cisco 7010SP,V10.0

• Edinburgh Router. This networking device is set to a Cisco 7010SP,v10.0

• London Router. This networking device is set to a Cisco 7010SP,V10.0

4. What is the bandwidth of each Point-to-Point link?

Ans:- The Bandwidth of each point to point link are as fallows:

Point-to-Point Bandwidth

Manchester-Edinburgh 9.6 kbps

Manchester-London 9.6 kbps

Edinburgh-London 9.6 kbps

5. What is the packet protocol used in this model?

Ans:

Packet Protocol used in this model for message source in Manchester LAN, Edinburgh

LAN and for response source in London LAN is TP-ATM

Parameters of TP-ATM are:-

Packets

Data byte:- 128

OH byte:- 3

Ack size (bytes):- 1

Ack priority :- 1

Error control

Retransmission time:- 500

Flow control

Window packets:-1

Flow control window:- none

15

Rate control

Rate control:- none

Traffic policing:-none

Open/close

Open

Request byte:-1

Confirm byte:-1

Close

Request byte:-1

Confirm byte:-1

6. Find out any particular bottleneck in this model.

Ans:-

Here ManchesterLAN, EdinburghLAN and LondonLAN is configured with the

bandwidth of 4MB whereas point-to-point link is configured with the bandwidth of

9.6kbps. So, it create bottleneck inside each LAN because the data flows with high rate

but whenever data is sent to or received from another LAN through point-to-point link

data flow rate will be maximum of 9.6kbps.

7. Is there any spare bandwidth and computer processing power in this model?

Ans: There is no spare bandwidth in this model there is spare processing power

Spare Bandwidth

No

Spare processing power:-

London node.

16

8. What are the most heavily loaded devices in this model?

Ans:

The heavily loaded devices in this WAN model are mentioned below:-

• Processing node of London:- it receive all the incoming message from other

LANs.

• EdinburghLAN

• ManchesterLAN

9. Based on your experiments and/or observations, discuss the consequences if there is a

backbone link outage, such as the backbone link “Manchester-London” or

“Edinburgh-London” down.

Ans:

When the point-to-point link of Edinburgh-London is down then following results are

obtained:

Frame Delivered: during the presence of the Edinburgh-London link the frame delivered by

the Manchester is 796, Edinburgh is 899, from routerLondon & routerMan is 397 & 399 for

the Manchester-London link likewise by the Londonlan is 1697 and from routerLondon &

routerEdin is 450 for Edinburg-Liverpool link but during the absence of the Edinburgh-

London link the frame delivered is the Manchester is 852, Edinburgh is 820, from

routerLondon & routerMan is increased by 837 & 835 for the Manchester-London link

likewise by the Londonlan is 1671 and from routerMan & routerEdin is 409 & 411

respectively. This is because there is no flow of packets from Edinburgh-London link but the

packets variation is litter for the London-Manchester path and the utilization of the channel is

more. Due to this message will delivered more in the Manchester link than the Edinburgh.

Graph mentioned below show the channel utilization and frame delivered during the presence

and absence of the Edinburgh-London point-to-point link.

17

Figure 7: Comparison of P2P Model with & with E-L Link

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

With Edinburgh-London (FrameDelivered)

Without Edinburgh-London(Frames Delivered)

With Edinburgh-London (ChannelUltilization )

Without Edinburgh-London(Channel Ultilization )

18

Conclusion: From the above mention result of both wan and p2p model it is proved that wan

model is far better than p2p in real life senario.The reports that are generated clearly shows

the overall function of the WAN and P2P models that were created from comnet software.

Here, we configured a network using CSMA/CD and FDDI basic with the net video sources

and different processing nodes including the internal and external router. Hence the result

generate the advantages of the WAN model over the p2p model.

19

REFERENCES

LAN - Local Area Network (LAN). 2013. LAN - Local Area Network (LAN). [ONLINE] Available at:http://compnetworking.about.com/cs/lanvlanwan/g/bldef_lan.htm. [Accessed 4 January 2013].

COMNET III. 2013. COMNET III. [ONLINE] Available at:http://feamane.org/comms/testtools/comnet3/comnet3.html. [Accessed 4 January 2013].

CSMA/CD. 2013. CSMA/CD. [ONLINE] Available

at:http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/~gorry/eg3561/lan-pages/csma-cd.html. [Accessed 6 January

2013].

http://compnetworking.about.com/cs/lanvlanwan/g/bldef_lan.htm

http://feamane.org/comms/testtools/comnet3/comnet3.html

http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/~gorry/eg3561/lan-pages/csma-cd.html

20

Appendix

Communication Network Comnet Report

Technology

Transcript of Communication Network Comnet Report