Task 1a: Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) – Summary

The concept of VLANs plays a crucial role in today’s interconnected world as it is vital to secure
networks and manage them efficiently. The video titled "VLANs, Trunks, and Switches, Oh
My!" delivers a thorough and practical explanation about the functionality of VLANs and how
beneficial they are in networking environments. VLANs are defined as logical groupings of
devices that act as if they are in the same physical network, even if they are physically separated.
Administrators can better categorize users according to their roles or departments rather than
their physical location by following this logical segmentation. This also simplifies network
management and enhances flexibility.

A significant benefit of using VLANs is the ability to divide a complicated network into several
smaller subnetworks. Segmenting the network reduces the number of broadcast domains,
minimizing unnecessary traffic and improving network performance. In an organization with
separate departments, VLANs ensure each department is placed in its broadcast domain. This
enhances both network efficiency and security by segregating sensitive data from the rest of the
network. If a security issue occurs in one department of the VLAN, it usually remains isolated
from the rest of the network and does not necessarily affect others.

The video also discusses how VLANs are configured to share data across multiple switches. This
is where trunk links are used. A trunk link is a single physical link between two switches that
allows traffic for all assigned VLANs to flow through it at the same time. This approach reduces
the need for multiple physical connections between each switch and VLAN. To implement this,
tags are placed on the Ethernet frames to specify the associated VLAN using the IEEE 802.1Q
protocol. A unique 4-byte tag is attached to each packet by this protocol to indicate which VLAN
it should be forwarded to, so that the receiving switch understands how to process the traffic.

Moreover, VLAN management is streamlined by using VLAN Trunking Protocol (VTP), which
enables automatic sharing of VLAN information between switches. This is particularly useful in
large networks where manually configuring each switch would be tedious and more prone to
misconfigurations. There are three VTP modes: server, client, and transparent. In server mode,
switches can add, modify, and remove VLANs and push these updates to other switches in the
same VTP domain. The switches in client mode can receive and implement VLAN
configurations from servers but lack permission to make any changes. Switches in transparent
mode are not involved in VTP updates but can relay updates to other switches. All switches
within the same VTP domain must share the same VTP domain name, as VLAN information will
not be synced properly if the domain names are mismatched.

Furthermore, the video also describes another advanced feature of VTP called VTP pruning.
VTP pruning allows switches to save network resources, such as bandwidth on trunk links, by
allowing VLAN traffic only to the switches that have devices within that VLAN. In the absence
of pruning, irrelevant VLAN traffic may be sent over to trunk links to switches that do not need
it. VTP pruning optimizes VLAN traffic and significantly speeds up network utilization.

The practical session demonstrates how to set up VLANs and trunks. It demonstrates how to set
up VLAN configurations with the “vlan” command and assign specific switch ports to them. It
then explains the process of configuring trunk links with commands like “switchport trunk
encapsulation dot1q” and “switchport mode trunk”. The “switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q”
command specifies the VLAN tagging method as the IEEE 802.1Q standard, and “switchport
mode trunk” enables the trunking mode on the switch port, which allows traffic from different
VLANs. Additionally, native VLAN is also discussed, which manages untagged traffic on a
trunk link. It is essential to configure the same VLAN on both ends of a trunk to prevent traffic
conflicts.

Lastly, the cruciality of using commands such as “show vlan brief”, “show vtp status”, and
“show interfaces trunk” to verify configurations is emphasized, as these commands help identify
and resolve problems like VLAN misconfigurations, inaccurate VTP domains, and trunk
configuration errors. The “show vlan brief” command gives a list of all VLANs configured on
the switch. The “show vtp status” command provides the current status of the VTP on the switch,
which includes information like the VTP domain name, mode, and the number of VLANs that
are known to the switch. The “show interfaces trunk” command reveals information about the
trunk ports on the switch. This command is used to verify the trunk configurations and
troubleshoot problems related to VLAN traffic.

In conclusion, a clear, in-depth understanding of VLANs, trunking, and VTP is provided by the
video. VLANs, trunking and VTP underpin the creation of networks that are scalable, secure and
use resources intelligently. VLANs allow organizations to create an efficient network structure
where the network can scale while still remaining easy to manage.

Self-Reflection

By watching the lecture session and completing task 1a, I understood how VLANs enhance
network organization, security, and efficiency. A detailed explanation of VLANs, trunking, and
protocols such as VTP is provided by the video which helped me understand their practical
benefits such as reducing broadcast domains, isolating traffic for security, and utilizing
bandwidth. The configuration commands demonstrated in the video such as setting trunk ports or
using IEEE 802.1Q tagging aided me to connect theory with real-world use cases. I also gained
insights on how VTP modes and pruning eases large network management. This task helped in
strengthening my theoretical and practical knowledge of network segmentation.

Task 1b
Summary of the Article
In the article “Performance Evaluation using Spanning Tree Protocol, Rapid Spanning Tree
Protocol, Per-VLAN Spanning Tree, and Multiple Spanning Tree” Abd et al. (2024) investigates
and compares how four Layer 2 loop-prevention protocols—Spanning Tree Protocol (STP),
Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP), Per-VLAN Spanning Tree (PVST), and Multiple
Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP) perform within the network environment. The importance of
maintaining a loop-free topology in Ethernet networks is emphasized, especially when more than
one redundant route is provided.

STP is the oldest of these protocols and it is designed using a tree structure that filters out
unnecessary redundant paths to prevent network loops. This ensures stability but increases
latency due to its slow convergence time. RSTP solves this problem by lowering convergence
time to just seconds. PVST, a propriety protocol developed by Cisco, enables each VLAN to get
its own STP instance, improving load balancing and performance in VLAN-rich environments.
MSTP takes this even further by mapping VLANs into fewer spanning tree instances to optimize
both resource utilization and scalability.

Abd et al. (2024) evaluates each protocol on seven critical factors: how quickly it converges,
how much delay it has, how well it handles jitter, how much bandwidth it uses, its reliability,
congestion management, and scalability. Instead of examining only a few metrics or only a
certain protocol, the study here used GNS3 and IPERF network simulation tools to provide a
broader comparison of performance. Moreover, two network topologies- a small and a large
network are used for testing purposes. UDP and TCP with different levels of load are used to
generate traffic. IPERF is utilized for simulating traffic and calculating bandwidth, while ping
testing helps to determine convergence time by tracking loss of packet during network
disruptions.

Spanning Tree Protocol (STP)

In the article, STP demonstrated reliability and scalability across various network conditions. IT
thrived in high-load scenarios, successfully sending over 127 GB of data with both small and
large topologies. However, it revealed significant latency issues (up to 147 ms) and noticeable
jitter, especially in small topologies. The main drawback of STP is the convergence time of
roughly 60 seconds. Nonetheless, the stability of STP and the ability to handle large networks
makes it well-suited for accommodating big networks where quick restoration is not required.

Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP)

RSTP showed significantly faster convergence times (ranging from 3 to 5 seconds), making it
suitable for networks requiring rapid failure recovery. Despite this, it struggled under heavy load
and large-scale simulations. The article highlights repeated connectivity failures and reduced
performance when handling 100 parallel UDP streams which indicates that RSTP is unsuitable
for large or growing networks. Even though a considerable amount of data was transferred, the
concerns regarding reliability issues still remain for critical applications.

Per-VLAN Spanning Tree (PVST)

The PVST protocol surpassed the others in most of the measured areas. The results showed high
scalability, fast convergence, minimal delay, and stable performance even under intense network
load. With larger topologies, PVST showed a delay of only 77 ms and maintained a high rate of
packet delivery. The design of PVST allows a separate spanning tree instance for every VLAN,
increasing the efficiency of traffic distribution. However, this advantage comes with higher
hardware requirements and so PVST is most suitable for corporate networks with adequate
resources.

Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol (MSTP)

MSTP, which intended to improve scalability by grouping VLANs into fewer spanning tree
instances, exhibited underperformance in the experiments. When faced with a lot of traffic, it
experienced more delay, poor jitter performance, and even complete failure. According to the
results, MSTP might be effective in smaller or simpler networks but is not ideal for large
topologies or demanding environments.

Understanding and Evaluation of the Main Points

The paper used a strong and robust methodology. The authors guarantee consistency in
comparison by utilizing the same tools, types of traffic, and test environments across all tests.
Assessing factors like packet loss, jitter, and throughput offer a realistic comparison of protocol
performance in production environments.

Furthermore, the authors also succeeded in recognizing the negative aspects. Even though STP is
easy to use and steady, it recovers slowly. RSTP provides faster convergence but cannot handle
heavy load. PVST offers many useful features and is scalable, but it demands advanced
hardware. Theoretically, MSTP can make it easier to organize VLANs, yet the experiments did
not support this.

However, there are some limitations in the article. The report only briefly mentions protocol
weaknesses but does not provide an in-depth explanation of MSTP’s poor performance. Also, the
article does not have a comparison to modern alternatives such as Shortest Path Bridging (SPB)
or TRILL which would have added valuable context since more enterprise networks are choosing
alternatives to STP. Nevertheless, the study gives network professionals a straight-forward and
helpful way to pick the best protocol based on their requirements.
By integrating hands-on testing with well-defined performance metrics, the article helps in
bridging the gap between theoretical protocol concepts and real-world implementations. The
results in the article prove that no single protocol is universally superior and the ideal choice
depends on the unique needs of the network.

Task 3

Introduction

As the size and level of complexity of a network increases, it is crucial to choose an efficient
routing protocol for efficient data transmission, scalability, and security. Routing protocols such
as RIPng and OSPFv3 have been developed to support the demands of modern networks and
transition to IPv6. This report assesses and compares the performance metrics of RIPng and
OSPFv3 according to findings from an OPNET simulation research study. The comparison is
made based on five key factors such as scalability, speed, resource utilization, topology
suitability and security. The analysis of various aspects in the report assists network experts to
choose the right protocol for a specific size and type of network.

Scalability

RIPng:
RIPng is derived from the original RIP protocol for IPv6 and hence inherited the constraints of
its predecessor which is primarily the maximum hop count of 15. This limitation significantly
limits the scalability of networks using RIPng as the destinations beyond 15 hops are considered
unreachable. This makes this protocol unsuitable for large or geographically dispersed networks.
Additionally, in topologies where paths exceed the hop limit or where redundancy is crucial for
fault tolerance, this constraint can lead to inefficient routing.

OSPFv3:
In contrast, OSPFv3 is explicitly designed to offer scalability. It follows a hierarchical
architecture that divides the network into several areas to support large-scale network
deployments. This architecture minimizes the complexity of routing tables by helping in
segmentation and also enhances the efficiency of network convergence and management of route
advertisements. According to Masruroh et al. (2016), OSPFv3 offers a critical advantage in
enterprise and ISP-grade networks where performance, stability, and scalability are essential as it
allows efficient management of thousands of routes.

Speed

RIPng:
RIPng uses a distance-vector routing approach that updates routing tables at fixed intervals
typically every 30 seconds. This periodic update mechanism results in slower convergence as the
protocol must wait for the next update cycle in order to reflect the changes in the network.
However, the research study reports that RIPng achieved a higher average throughput of 935
Kbits/s which indicates that in small, stable networks, with rare chances of topology changes,
RIPng can provide reliable and consistent data throughput.

OSPFv3:
In contrast, OSPFv3, which is based on a link-state routing model exhibited faster convergence
but a lower average throughput of 808.8 Kbits/s. OSPFv3 responds immediately to topology
changes by distributing Link State Advertisements (LSAs) instead of waiting for periodic
updates. This results in faster recalculation of routes, making OSPFv3 ideal for dynamic
environments where rapid recovery and minimal downtime are critical.

Resource Use

RIPng:

The simplicity of RIPng is one of its strengths due to its basic functionality and limited features.
This means the software uses little CPU power, needs little memory and is not difficult to
configure. These make it suitable for environments with constrained devices like home networks
or to low-power IoT devices. However, this resource efficiency reduces the ability of the system
to scale and handle large fluctuations.

OSPFv3:

Alternatively, OSPFv3 places significant demands on both the network and the network
equipment. More CPU resources and memory are needed to handle the detailed link-state
database, go through LSAs and determine the best route using Dijkstra’s algorithm. Researchers
mention that this resource need could be more problematic for low-powered routers or embedded
systems. At the same time, paying this price is reasonable in top-level networks as it supports
better performance and ensures efficiency and robustness.
Topology Suitability

RIPng:

Due to how simple RIPng is and the limitations it has, it works best in small and flat network
topologies. It gives reliable results in stable environments with fewer routers and regular data
flows. RIPng works best for simple networks due to the limited hop count and lack of advanced
route metrics. It leads to potentially suboptimal routing in larger networks due to its inability to
differentiate paths based on factors such as bandwidth or latency.

OSPFv3 excels in complex, multi-area topologies. It supports hierarchical routing through area
division which reduces routing overhead and increases manageability. Moreover, network
administrators can influence path selection based on link quality due to OSPFv3’s use of cost-
based routing metrics which makes it suitable for both enterprise backbones and service provider
networks. This ability to handle different link states allows the system to operate more steadily
and efficiently .

Security

RIPng:

RIPng has relatively weak security. It relies on IPv6’s built-in security features such as IPsec and
it does not have native support for authentication methods. This makes the RIPng vulnerable to
attacks like route spoofing, where an attacker can disrupt the network communication by
injecting false routing information. RIPng does not offer sufficient out-of the box protection for
environments where routing security is a priority.

OSPFv3:

One of the key advantages of OSPFv3 is its security. It provides explicit support for
authentication and encryption unlike RIPng. The integrity and authenticity of messages between
routers can be ensured by configuring the OSPFv3 to use IPsec. This makes it ideal for networks
where routing integrity and data confidentiality are essential like military or financial sectors.

Conclusion

In summary, RIPng and OSPFv3 each offer distinct benefits catering to different network
requirements. In small scale, resource-constrained environments, RIPng is appropriate as it
prioritizes simplicity and ease of configuration over advanced routing features. It is an accessible
and practical solution for less dynamic networks as it delivers higher throughput in stable
conditions, coupled with low resource needs, and ease of deployment.
In contrast, OSPFv3 is the preferred protocol for larger, dynamic, and security-sensitive
networks. It is positioned as a highly reliable and efficient protocol for modern networking
demands due to its superior scalability, fast convergence, and robust security mechanisms. Even
though it requires greater resource consumption and configuration effort, these investments yield
a strong, adaptable routing infrastructure that is capable of supporting complex and evolving
topologies.