Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability
Network Working Group Clarence Filsfils
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational Pierre Francois
Expires: July 21, 2012 Institute IMDEA Networks
January 18, 2012
LFA applicability in SP networks
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-06
Abstract
In this document, we analyze the applicability of the Loop-Free
Alternates method of providing IP fast re-route in both the core and
the access parts of Service Provider networks. We consider both the
link and node failure cases, and provide guidance on the
applicability of LFA to different network topologies, with special
emphasis on the access parts of the network.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 21, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Access Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1. E1C1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.2. C1E1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.3. uLoop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Full-Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. E1A1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2. A1E1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3. A1C1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.4. C1A1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.5. uLoop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.1. E1A1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.2. A1E1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.3. A1C1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.4. C1A1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3.6. A square might become a full-mesh . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.7. A full-mesh might be more economical than a square . . 18
3.4. Extended U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.1. E1A1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.2. A1E1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4.3. A1C1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.4. C1A1 failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.5. Dual-plane Core and its impact on the Access LFA
analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6. Two-tiered IGP metric allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.7. uLoop analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.8. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4. Core Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1. Simulation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2. Data Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3. Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Core and Access protection schemes are independent . . . . . . 27
6. Simplicity and other LFA benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Capacity Planning with LFA in mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1. Coverage Estimation - Default Topology . . . . . . . . . . 28
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
7.2. Coverage estimation in relation to traffic . . . . . . . . 29
7.3. Coverage verification for a given set of demands . . . . . 29
7.4. Modeling - What-if Scenarios - Coverage impact . . . . . . 29
7.5. Modeling - What-if Scenarios - Load impact . . . . . . . . 30
7.6. Discussion on metric recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
1. Introduction
In this document, we analyze the applicability of the Loop-Free
Alternates (LFA) [RFC5714] [RFC5286] method of providing IP fast re-
route (IPFRR) in both the core and the access parts of Service
Provider (SP) networks. We consider both the link and node failure
cases, and provide guidance on the applicability of LFA to different
network topologies, with special emphasis on the access parts of the
network.
We first introduce the terminology used in this document in
Section 2. In Section 3, we describe typical access network designs
and we analyze them for LFA applicability. In Section 4, we describe
a simulation framework for the study of LFA applicability in SP core
networks, and present results based on various SP networks. We then
emphasize the independence between protection schemes used in the
core and at the access level of the network. Finally we discuss the
key benefits of LFA which stem from its simplicity and we draw some
conclusions.
2. Terminology
We use IS-IS [RFC1195] as reference. It is assumed that normal
routing (i.e., when traffic not being fast re-routed around a
failure) occurs along the shortest path. The analysis is equally
applicable to OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340].
A per-prefix LFA for a destination D at a node S is a precomputed
backup IGP nexthop for that destination. This backup IGP nexthop can
be link protecting or node protecting. In this document, we assume
that all links to be protected with LFAs are point-to-point.
Link-protecting: A neighbor N is a link-protecting per-prefix LFA for
S's route to D if equation eq1 is satisfied, with eq1 == ND < NS + SD
where XY refers to the IGP distance from X to Y. This is in line with
the definition of an LFA in [RFC5714].
eq1 == ND < NS + SD
Equation eq1
Node-protecting: A Neighbor N is a node-protecting LFA for S's route
to D, with initial IGP nexthop F if N is a link-protecting LFA for D
and equation eq2 is satisfied, with eq2 == ND < NF + FD. This is in
line with the definition of a Node-Protecting Alternate Next-Hop in
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
[RFC5714].
eq2 == ND < NF + FD
Equation eq2
De facto node-protecting LFA: this is a link-protecting LFA that
turns out to be node-protecting. This occurs in cases illustrated by
the following examples :
o The LFA candidate that is picked by S actually satisfies Equation
eq2 but S did not verify that property. The show command issued
by the operator would not indicate this LFA as "node protecting"
while in practice (de facto) it is.
o A cascading effect of multiple LFA's can also provide de facto
node protection. Equation eq2 is not satisfied, but the combined
activation of LFAs by some other neighbors of the failing node F
provides (de facto) node protection. In other words, it puts the
dataplane in a state such that packets forwarded by S ultimately
reach a neighbor of F that has a node-protecting LFA. Note that
in this case S cannot indicate the node-protecting behavior of the
repair without running additional computations.
Per-Link LFA: a per-link LFA for the link SF is one precomputed
backup IGP nexthop for all the destinations reached through SF. This
is a neighbor of the repairing node that is a per-Prefix LFA for all
the destinations that the repairing node reaches through SF. Note
that such a per-link LFA exists if S has a per-prefix LFA for
destination F.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
D
/ \
10 / \ 10
/ \
G H----------.
| | |
1 | 1 | |
| | |
B C | 10
| |\ |
| | \ |
| | \ 6 |
| | \ |
7 | 10 | E F
| | / /
| | / 6 / 5
| | / /
| |/ /
A-------S-----/
7
Figure 1: Example 1
In Figure 1, considering the protection of link SC, we can see that
A, E, and F are per-prefix LFAs for destination D, as none of them
use S to reach D.
For destination D, A and F are node-protecting LFA as they do not
reach D through node C, while E is not node-protecting for S as it
reaches D through C.
If S does not compute and select node-protecting LFAs, there is a
chance that S picks the non node-protecting LFA E, although A and F
were node-protecting LFAs. If S enforces the selection of node-
protecting LFAs, then in the case of the single failure of link SC, S
will first activate its LFA and deviate traffic addressed to D along
S-A-B-G-D and/or S-F-H-D, and then converge to its post-convergence
optimal path S-E-C-H-D.
A is not a per-link LFA for link SC because A reaches C via S. E is a
per-Link LFA for link SC as it reaches C through link EC. This per-
link LFA does not provide de facto node protection. Upon failure of
node C, S would fast-reroute D-destined packets to its per-link lfa
(= E). E would himself detect the failure of EC and hence activate
its own per-link LFA (=S). Traffic addressed to D would be trapped
in a loop and hence there is no de facto node protection behavior.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
If there were a link between E and F, that E would pick as its LFA
for destination D, then E would provide de facto node protection for
S, as upon the activation of its LFA, S would deviate traffic
addressed to D towards E, which in turns deviates that traffic to F,
which does not reach D through C.
F is a per-Link LFA for link SC as F reaches C via H. This per-link
LFA is de facto node-protecting for destination D as F reaches D via
F-H-D.
MicroLoop (uLoop): the occurrence of a transient forwarding loop
during a routing transition (as defined in [RFC5714]).
In Figure 1, the loss of link SE cannot create any uLoop because:
1/The link is only used to reach destination E and 2/ S is the sole
node changing its path to E upon link SE failure. 3/ S's shortest
path to E after the failure goes via C. 4/C's best path to E (before
and after link SC failure) is via CE.
To the contrary, upon failure of link AB, a microloop may form for
traffic destined to B. Indeed, if A updates its FIB before S, A will
deviate B-destined traffic towards S, while S is still forwarding
this traffic to A.
3. Access Network
The access part of the network often represents the majority of the
nodes and links. It is organized in several tens or more of regions
interconnected by the core network. Very often the core acts as an
IS-IS level2 domain (OSPF area 0) while each access region is
confined in an IS-IS level1 domain (OSPF non 0 area). Very often,
the network topology within each access region is derived from a
unique template common across the whole access network. Within an
access region itself, the network is made of several aggregation
regions, each following the same interconnection topologies.
For these reasons, in the next sections, we base the analysis of the
LFA applicability in a single access region, with the following
assumptions:
o Two routers (C1 and C2) provide connectivity between the access
region and the rest of the network. If a link connects these two
routers in the region area, then it has a symmetric IGP metric c.
o We analyze a single aggregation region within the access region.
Two aggregation routers (A1 and A2) interconnect the aggregation
region to the two routers C1 and C2 for the analyzed access
region. If a link connects A1 to A2 then it has a symmetric IGP
metric a. If a link connects an A to a C router then, for sake of
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
generality, we will call d the metric for the directed link CA and
u the metric for the AC directed link.
o We analyze two edge routers E1 and E2 in the access region. Each
is either dual-homed directly into C1 and C2 (Section 3.1) or into
A1 and A2 (Section 3.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4 ). The directed
link metric between Cx/Ax and Ey is d and u in the opposite
direction.
o We assume a multi-level IGP domain. The analyzed access region
forms a level-1 (L1) domain. The core is the level-2 (L2) domain.
We assume that the link between C1 and C2, if it exists, is
configured as L1L2. We assume that the loopbacks of the C routers
are part of the L2 topology. L1 routers learn about them as
propagated routes (L2=>L1 with Down bit set). We remind that if
an L1L2 router learns about X/x as an L1 path P1, an L2 path P2
and an L1L2 path P12, then it will prefer path P1. If P1 is lost,
then it will prefer path P2.
o We assume that all the C, A and E routers may be connected to
customers and hence we analyze LFA coverage for the loopbacks of
each type of node.
o We assume that no useful traffic is directed to router-to-router
subnets and hence we do not analyze LFA applicability for these.
o A prefix P models an important IGP destination that is not present
in the local access region. The igp metric from C1 to P is x and
the metric from C2 to P is x+e.
o We analyze LFA coverage against all link and node failures within
the access region.
o WxYz refers to the link from Wx to Yz.
o We assume that c < d + u and a < d + u (commonly agreed design
rule).
o In the square access design (Section 3.3), we assume that c < a
(commonly agreed design rule).
o We analyze the most frequent topologies found in an access region.
o We first analyze per-prefix LFA applicability and then per-link.
o The topologies are symmetric with respect to a vertical axe and
hence we only detail the logic for the link and node failures of
the left half of the topology.
3.1. Triangle
We describe the LFA applicability for the failures of each direction
of link C1E1, E1 and C1 (Figure 2), and for the failure of each node.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
P
/ \
x/ \x+e
/ \
C1--c--C2
|\ /|
d/u| \/ |d/u
| / \ |
E1 E2
Figure 2: Triangle
3.1.1. E1C1 failure
3.1.1.1. Per-Prefix LFA
Three destinations are impacted by this link failure: C1, E2 and P.
The LFA for destination C1 is C2 because eq1 == c < d + u. Node
protection for route C1 is not applicable. (if C1 goes down, traffic
destined to C1 is lost anyway).
The LFA to E2 is via C2 because eq1 == d < d+u+d. It is node
protecting because eq2 == d < c + d.
The LFA to P is via C2 because eq1 == c < d + u. It is node
protecting if eq2 == x + e < x + c, i.e., if e < c. This
relationship between e and c is an important aspect of the analysis,
which is discussed in detail in Section 3.5 and Section 3.6
Conclusion: all important intra-PoP routes with primary interface
E1C1 benefit from LFA link and node protection. All important inter-
PoP routes with primary interface E1C1 benefit from LFA link
protection, and also from node protection if e < c.
3.1.1.2. Per-Link LFA
We have a per-prefix LFA to C1 and hence we have a per-link LFA for
link E1C1. All impacted destinations are protected for link failure.
In case of C1 node failure, the traffic to C1 is lost (by
definition), the traffic to E2 is de facto protected against node
failure and the traffic to P is de facto protected when e < c.
3.1.2. C1E1 failure
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
3.1.2.1. Per-Prefix LFA
C1 has one single primary route via C1E1: the route to E1 (because c
< d + u).
C1's LFA to E1 is via C2 because eq1 == d < c + d.
Node protection upon E1's failure is not applicable as the only
impacted traffic is sinked at E1 and hence is lost anyway.
Conclusion: all important routes with primary interface C1E1 benefit
from LFA link protection. Node protection is not applicable.
3.1.2.2. Per-Link LFA
We have a per-prefix LFA to E1 and hence we have a per-link LFA for
link C1E1. De facto node protection is not applicable.
3.1.3. uLoop
The IGP convergence cannot create any uLoop. See Section 3.7.
3.1.4. Conclusion
All important intra-PoP routes benefit from LFA link and node
protection or de facto node protection. All important inter-PoP
routes benefit from LFA link protection. De facto node protection is
ensured if e < c (this is particularly the case for dual-plane core
or two-tiered-igp-metric design, see later sections).
The IGP convergence does not cause any uLoop.
Per-link LFA and per-Prefix LFA provide the same protection benefits.
3.2. Full-Mesh
We describe the LFA applicability for the failures of C1A1, A1E1, E1,
A1 and C1 (Figure 3).
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
P
/ \
x/ \x+e
/ \
C1--c--C2
|\ /|
| \ / |
d/u | \ | d/u
| / \ |
|/ \|
A1--a--A2
|\ /|
d/u| \/ |d/u
| / \ |
E1 E2
Figure 3: Full-Mesh
3.2.1. E1A1 failure
3.2.1.1. Per-Prefix LFA
Four destinations are impacted by this link failure: A1, C1, E2 and
P.
The LFA for A1 is A2: eq1 == a < d + u. Node protection for route A1
is not applicable (if A1 goes down, traffic to A1 is lost anyway).
The LFA for C1 is A2: eq1 == u < d + u + u. Node protection for
route C1 is guaranteed: eq2 == u < a + u.
The LFA to E2 is via A2: eq1 == d < d+u+d. Node protection is
guaranteed: eq2 == d < a + d.
The LFA to P is via A2: eq1 == u + x < d + u + u + x. Node
protection is guaranteed: eq2 == u+ x < a + u + x.
Conclusion: all important intra-PoP and inter-PoP routes with primary
interface E1A1 benefit from LFA link and node protection.
3.2.1.2. Per-Link LFA
We have a per-prefix LFA to A1 and hence we have a per-link LFA for
link E1A1. All impacted destinations are protected for link failure.
De facto node protection is provided for all destinations (except to
A1 which is not applicable).
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
3.2.2. A1E1 failure
3.2.2.1. Per-Prefix LFA
A1 has one single primary route via A1E1: the route to E1 (because c
< d + u).
A1's LFA to E1 is via A2: eq1 == d < a + d.
Node protection upon E1's failure is not applicable as the only
impacted traffic is sinked at E1 and hence is lost anyway.
Conclusion: all important routes with primary interface A1E1 benefit
from LFA link protection. Node protection is not applicable.
3.2.2.2. Per-Link LFA
We have a per-prefix LFA to E1 and hence we have a per-link LFA for
link C1E1. De facto node protection is not applicable.
3.2.3. A1C1 failure
3.2.3.1. Per-Prefix LFA
Two destinations are impacted by this link failure: C1 and P.
The LFA for C1 is C2 because eq1 == c < d + u. Node protection for
route C1 is not applicable (if C1 goes down, traffic to C1 is lost
anyway).
The LFA for P is via C2 because eq1 == c < d + u. It is de facto
protected for node failure if eq2 == x + e < x + c.
Conclusion: all important intra-PoP routes with primary interface
A1C1 benefit from LFA link protection (node protection is not
applicable). All important inter-PoP routes with primary interface
E1C1 benefit from LFA link protection (and from de facto node
protection if e < c).
3.2.3.2. Per-Link LFA
We have a per-prefix LFA to C1 and hence we have a per-link LFA for
link A1C1. All impacted destinations are protected for link failure.
In case of C1 node failure, the traffic to C1 is lost (by definition)
and the traffic to P is de facto node protected if e < c.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
3.2.4. C1A1 failure
3.2.4.1. Per-Prefix LFA
C1 has three routes via C1A1: A1, E1 and E2. E2 behaves like E1 and
hence is not analyzed further.
C1's LFA to A1 is via C2 because we assumed c < a and eq1 == d < c +
d. Node protection upon A1's failure is not applicable as the
traffic to A1 is lost anyway.
C1's LFA to E1 is via A2: eq1 == d < u+ d + d. Node protection upon
A1's failure is guaranteed because: eq2 == d < a + d.
Conclusion: all important routes with primary interface C1A1 benefit
from LFA link protection. Node protection is guaranteed where
applicable.
3.2.4.2. Per-Link LFA
We have a per-prefix LFA to A1 and hence we have a per-link LFA for
link C1E1. De facto node protection is available.
3.2.5. uLoop
The IGP convergence cannot create any uLoop. See Section 3.7.
3.2.6. Conclusion
All important intra-PoP routes benefit from LFA link and node
protection.
All important inter-PoP routes benefit from LFA link protection.
They benefit from node protection upon failure of A nodes. They
benefit from node protections upon failure of C nodes if e < c (this
is particularly the case for dual-plane core or two-tiered-igp-metric
design, see later sections).
The IGP convergence does not cause any uLoop.
Per-link LFA and per-Prefix LFA provide the same protection benefits.
3.3. Square
We describe the LFA applicability for the failures of C1A1, A1E1, E1,
A1 and C1 (Figure 4).
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
P
/ \
x/ \x+e
/ \
C1--c--C2
|\ | \
| \ | +-------+
d/u | \ | \
| +-|-----+ \
| | \ \
A1--a--A2 A3--a--A4
|\ /| | /
d/u| \/ |d/u | /
| / \ | |/
E1 E2 E3
Figure 4: Square
3.3.1. E1A1 failure
3.3.1.1. Per-Prefix LFA
E1 has six routes via E1A1: A1, C1, P, E2, A3, E3.
E1's LFA route to A1 is via A2 because eq1 == a < d + u. Node
protection for traffic to A1 upon A1 node failure is not applicable.
E1's LFA route to A3 is via A2 because eq1 == u + c + d < d + u + u +
d. This LFA is guaranteed to be node protecting because eq2 == u + c
+ d < a + u + d.
E1's LFA route to C1 is via A2 because eq1 == u + c < d + u + u.
This LFA is guaranteed to be node protecting because eq2 == u + c < a
+ u.
E1's primary route to E2 is via ECMP(E1A1, E1A2). The LFA for the
first ECMP path (via A1) is the second ECMP path (via A2). This LFA
is guaranteed to be node protecting because eq2 == d < a + d.
E1's primary route to E3 is via ECMP(E1A1, E1A2). The LFA for the
first ECMP path (via A1) is the second ECMP path (via A2). This LFA
is guaranteed to be node protecting because eq2 == u + d + d < a + u
d + d.
If e=0: E1's primary route to P is via ECMP(E1A1, E1A2). The LFA for
the first ECMP path (via A1) is the second ECMP path (via A2). This
LFA is guaranteed to be node protecting because eq2 == u + x + 0 < a
+ u + x .
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
If e<>0: E1's primary route to P is via E1A1. Its LFA is via A2
because eq1 == u + c + x < d + u + u + x. This LFA is guaranteed to
be node protecting because eq2 == u + c + x < a + u + x.
Conclusion: all important intra-PoP and inter-PoP routes with primary
interface E1A1 benefit from LFA link protection and node protection.
3.3.1.2. Per-Link LFA
We have a per-prefix LFA for A1 and hence we have a per-link LFA for
link E1A1. All important intra-PoP and inter-PoP routes with primary
interface E1A1 benefit from LFA per-link protection and de facto node
protection.
3.3.2. A1E1 failure
3.3.2.1. Per-Prefix LFA
A1 has one single primary route via A1E1: the route to E1.
A1's LFA for route E1 is the path via A2 because eq1 == d < a + d.
Node protection is not applicable.
Conclusion: all important routes with primary interface A1E1 benefit
from LFA link protection. Node protection is not applicable.
3.3.2.2. Per-Link LFA
All important routes with primary interface A1E1 benefit from LFA
link protection. De facto node protection is not applicable.
3.3.3. A1C1 failure
3.3.3.1. Per-Prefix LFA
Four destinations are impacted when A1C1 fails: C1, A3, E3, and P.
A1's LFA to C1 is via A2 because eq1 == u + c < a + u. Node
protection property is not applicable for traffic to C1 when C1
fails.
A1's LFA to A3 is via A2 because eq1 == u + c + d < a + u + d. It is
de facto node protecting as a < u + c + d (as we assumed a < u + d).
Indeed A2 forwards traffic destined to A3 to C2, and C2 has a node
protecting LFA for A3, for the failure of C2C1, being A4, as a < u +
c + d. Hence the cascading application of LFAs by A1 and C2 during
the failure of C1 provides de facto node protection.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
A1's LFA to E3 is via A2 because eq1 == u + d + d < a + u + d + d.
It is node protecting because eq2 == u + d + d < u + c + d + d.
A1's primary route to P is via C1 (even if e=0, u+x < u + c + x).
The LFA is via A2 because eq1 == [u + c + x < a + u + x]. This LFA
is node protecting (from the viewpoint of A1 computing eq2) if eq2 ==
u + x + e < u + c + x hence if e < c.
Conclusion: all important intra-PoP routes with primary interface
A1C1 benefit from LFA link protection and node protection. Note that
A3 benefits from a de facto node protection. All important inter-PoP
routes with primary interface A1C1 benefit from LFA link protection.
They also benefit from node protection if e < c.
3.3.3.2. Per-Link LFA
All important intra-PoP routes with primary interface A1C1 benefit
from LFA link protection and de facto node protection. All important
inter-PoP routes with primary interface A1C1 benefit from LFA link
protection. They also benefit from de facto node protection if e <
c.
3.3.4. C1A1 failure
3.3.4.1. Per-Prefix LFA
Three destinations are impacted by C1A1 link failure: A1, E1 and E2.
E2's analysis is the same as E1 and hence is omitted.
C1's has no LFA for A1. Indeed, all its neighbors (C2 and A3) have a
shortest path to A1 via C1. This is due to the assumption (c < a).
C1's LFA for E1 is via C2 because eq1 == d + d < c + d + d. It
provides node protection because eq2 == d + d < d + a + d.
Conclusion: all important intra-PoP routes with primary interface
A1C1 except A1 benefit from LFA link protection and node protection.
3.3.4.2. Per-Link LFA
C1 does not have a per-prefix LFA for destination A1 and hence there
is no per-link LFA for the link C1A1.
3.3.4.3. Assumptions on the values of c and a
The commonly agreed design rule (c < a) is especially beneficial for
a deployment using per-link LFA: it provides a per-link LFA for the
most important direction (A1C1). Indeed, there are many more
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
destinations reachable over A1C1 than over C1A1. As the IGP
convergence duration is proportional to the number of routes to
update, there is a better benefit in leveraging LFA FRR for the link
A1C1 than the link C1A1.
Note as well that the consequence of this assumption is much more
important for per-link LFA than for per-prefix LFA.
For per-prefix LFA, in case of link C1A1 failure, we do have a per-
prefix LFA for E1, E2 and any node subtended below A1 and A2.
Typically most of the traffic traversing the link C1A1 is directed to
these E nodes and hence the lack of per-prefix LFA for the
destination A1 might be insignificant. This is a good example of the
coverage benefit of per-prefix LFA over per-link LFA.
In the remainder of this section we analyze the consequence of not
having c < a.
It definitely has a negative impact upon per-link LFA.
With c >= a, C1A1 has a per-link LFA while A1C1 has no per-link LFA.
The number of destinations impacted by A1C1 failure is much larger
than the direction C1A1 and hence the protection is provided for the
wrong direction.
For per-prefix LFA, the availability of an LFA depends on the
topology and needs to be assessed individually for each per-prefix.
Some backbone topologies will lead to very good protection coverage,
some others might provide very poor coverage.
More specifically, the coverage upon A1C1 failure of a remote
destination P depends on whether e < a. In such case, A2 is a de-
facto node-protecting per-prefix LFA for P.
Such a study likely requires a planning tool as each remote
destination P would have a different e value (exception: all the edge
devices of other aggregation pairs within the same region as for
these e=0 by definition, e.g. E3).
Finally note that c = a is the worst choice as in this case C1 has no
per-prefix LFA for A1 (and vice versa) and hence there is no per-link
LFA for C1A1 and A1C1.
3.3.5. Conclusion
All important intra-PoP routes benefit from LFA link and node
protection with one exception: C1 has no per-prefix LFA to A1.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
All important inter-PoP routes benefit from LFA link protection.
They benefit from node protection if e < c.
Per-link LFA provides the same protection coverage as per-prefix LFA
with two exceptions. First, C1A1 has no per-link LFA at all.
Second, when per-prefix LFA provides node protection (eq2 is
satisfied), per-link LFA provides effective de facto node protection.
3.3.6. A square might become a full-mesh
If the vertical links of the square are made of parallel links (at L3
or at L2), then one should consider splitting these "vertical links"
into "vertical and crossed links". The topology becomes "full-mesh".
One should also ensure that the two resulting set of links (vertical
and crossed) do not share any SRLG.
A typical reason preventing this is that the A1C1 bandwidth may be
within a building while the A1C2 is between buildings. Hence while
from a router port viewpoint the operation is cost-neutral, it is not
from a cost of bandwidth viewpoint.
3.3.7. A full-mesh might be more economical than a square
In a full-mesh, the vertical and cross-links play the dominant role
as they support most of the primary and backup paths. The capacity
of the horizontal links can be dimensioned on the basis of traffic
destined to a single C or a single A and a single E node.
3.4. Extended U
For the Extended U topology, we define the following terminology:
C1L1: the node "C1" as seen in topology L1.
C1L2: the node "C1" as seen in topology L2.
C1LO: the loopback of C1. This loopback is in L2.
C2LO: the loopback of C2. This loopback is in L2.
Let us also remind that C1 and C2 are L1L2 routers and that their
loopbacks are in L2 only.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
P
/ \
x/ \x+e
/ \
C1<...>C2
|\ | \
| \ | +-------+
d/u | \ | \
| +-|-----+ \
| | \ \
A1--a--A2 A3--a--A4
|\ /| | /
d/u| \/ |d/u | /
| / \ | |/
E1 E2 E3
Figure 5: Extended U
There is no L1 link between C1 and C2. There might be an L2 link
between C1 and C2. This is not relevant as this is not seen from the
viewpoint of the L1 topology which is the focus of our analysis.
It is guaranteed that there is a path from C1LO to C2LO within the L2
topology (except if the L2 topology partitions which is very unlikely
and hence not analyzed here). We call "c" its path cost. Once
again, we assume that c < a.
We exploit this property to create a tunnel T between C1LO and C2LO.
Once again, as the source and destination addresses are the loopbacks
of C1 and C2 and these loopbacks are in L2 only, it is guaranteed
that the tunnel does not transit via the L1 domain.
IS-IS does not run over the tunnel and hence the tunnel is not used
for any primary paths within the L1 or L2 topology.
Within Level1, we configure C1 (C2) with a Level1 LFA extended
neighbor "C2 via tunnel T" ("C1 via tunnel T").
A router supporting such extension learns that it has one additional
potential neighbor in topology Level1 when checking for LFA's.
The L1 topology learns about C1LO as an L2=>L1 route with Down bit
set propagated by C1L1 and C2L1. The metric advertised by C2L1 is
bigger than the metric advertised by C1L1 by "c".
The L1 topology learns about P as an L2=>L1 routes with Down bit set
propagated by C1L1 and C2L1. The metric advertised by C2L1 is bigger
than the metric advertised by C1L1 by "e". This implies that e <= c.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
3.4.1. E1A1 failure
3.4.1.1. Per-Prefix LFA
Five destinations are impacted by E1A1 link failure: A1, C1LO, E2, E3
and P.
The LFA for A1 is via A2 because eq1 == a < d + u. Node protection
for traffic to A1 upon A1 node failure is not applicable.
The LFA for E2 is via A2 because eq1 == d < d + u + d. Node
protection is guaranteed because eq2 == d < a + d.
The LFA for E3 is via A2 because eq1 == u + d + d < d + u + d + d.
Node protection is guaranteed because eq2 == u + d + d < a + u + d +
d.
The LFA for C1LO is via A2 because eq1 == u + c < d + u + u. Node
protection is guaranteed because eq2 == u + c < a + u.
If e=0: E1's primary route to P is via ECMP(E1A1, E1A2). The LFA for
the first ECMP path (via A1) is the second ECMP path (via A2). Node
protection is possible because eq2 == u + x < a + u + x.
If e<>0: E1's primary route to P is via E1A1. Its LFA is via A2
because eq1 == a + c + x < d + u + u + x. Node protection is
guaranteed because eq2 == u + x + e < a + u + x <=> e < a. This is
true because e <= c and c < a.
Conclusion: same as the square topology.
3.4.1.2. Per-Link LFA
Same as the square topology.
3.4.2. A1E1 failure
3.4.2.1. Per-Prefix LFA
Same as the square topology.
3.4.2.2. Per-Link LFA
Same as the square topology.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
3.4.3. A1C1 failure
3.4.3.1. Per-Prefix LFA
Three destinations are impacted when A1C1 fails: C1, E3 and P.
A1's LFA to C1LO is via A2 because eq1 == u + c < a + u. Node
protection property is not applicable for traffic to C1 when C1
fails.
A1's LFA to E3 is via A2 because eq1 == u + d + d < d + u + u + d +
d. Node protection is guaranteed because eq2 == u + d + d < a + u +
d + d.
A1's primary route to P is via C1 (even if e=0, u + x < a + u + x).
The LFA is via A2 because eq1 == u + x + e < a + u + x <=> e < a
(which is true see above). Node protection is guaranteed because eq2
== u + x + e < a + u + x.
Conclusion: same as the square topology
3.4.3.2. Per-Link LFA
Same as the square topology.
3.4.4. C1A1 failure
3.4.4.1. Per-Prefix LFA
Three destinations are impacted by C1A1 link failure: A1, E1 and E2.
E2's analysis is the same as E1 and hence is omitted.
C1L1 has an LFA for A1 via the extended neighbor C2L1 reachable via
tunnel T. Indeed, eq1 is true: d + a < d + a + u + d. From the
viewpoint of C1L1, C2L1's path to C1L1 is C2L1-A2-A1-C1L1. Remember
the tunnel is not seen by IS-IS for computing primary paths! Node
protection is not applicable for traffic to A1 when A1 fails.
C1L1's LFA for E1 is via extended neighbor C2L1 (over tunnel T)
because eq1 == d + d < d + a + u + d + d. Node protection is
guaranteed because eq2 == d + d < d + a + d.
3.4.4.2. Per-Link LFA
C1 has a per-prefix LFA for destination A1 and hence there is a per-
link LFA for the link C1A1. Node resistance is applicable for
traffic to E1 (and E2).
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
3.4.5. Conclusion
The extended U topology is as good as the square topology.
It does not require any cross links between the A and C nodes within
an aggregation region. It does not need an L1 link between the C
routers in an access region. Note that a link between the C routers
might exist in the L2 topology.
3.5. Dual-plane Core and its impact on the Access LFA analysis
A Dual-plane core is defined as follows
o Each access region k is connected to the core by two C routers
(C(1,k) and C(2,k)).
o C(1,k) is part of Plane1 of the dual-plane core.
o C(2,k) is part of Plane2 of the dual-plane core.
o C(1,k) has a link to C(2, l) iff k = l
o {C(1,k) has a link to C(1, l)} iff {C(2,k) has a link to C(2, l)}
In a dual-plane core design, e = 0 and hence the LFA node-protection
coverage is improved in all the analyzed topologies.
3.6. Two-tiered IGP metric allocation
A Two-tiered IGP metric allocation scheme is defined as follows
o all the link metrics used in the L2 domain are part of range R1
o all the link metrics used in an L1 domain are part of range R2
o range R1 << range R2 such that the difference e = C2P - C1P is
smaller than any link metric within an access region.
Assuming such an IGP metric allocation, the following properties are
guaranteed : c < a, e < c, and e < a.
3.7. uLoop analysis
In this section, we analyze a case where the routing transition
following the failure of a link may have some uLoop potential for one
destination. Then we show that all the other cases do not have uLoop
potential.
In the square design, upon the failure of link C1A1, traffic
addressed to A1 can undergo a transient forwarding loop as C1
reroutes traffic to C2, which initially reaches A1 through C1, as c <
a. This loop will actually occur when C1 updates its FIB for
destination A1 before C2.
It can be shown that all the other routing transitions following a
link failure in the analyzed topologies do not have uLoop potential.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
Indeed, in each case, for all destinations affected by the failure,
the rerouting nodes deviate their traffic directly to adjacent nodes
whose paths towards these destinations do not change. As a
consequence, all these routing transitions cannot undergo transient
forwarding loops.
For example, in the square topology, the failure of directed link
A1C1 does not lead to any uLoop. The destinations reached over that
directed link are C1 and P. A1 and E1's shortest paths to these
destinations after the convergence go via A2. A2's path to C1 and P
is not using A1C1 before the failure, hence no uLoop may occur.
3.8. Summary
In this section, we summarize the applicability of LFAs detailed in
the previous sections. For link protection, we use "Full" to refer
to the applicability of LFAs for each destination, reached via any
link of the topology. For node protection, we use "yes" to refer to
the fact that node protection is achieved for a given node.
1. Intra Area Destinations
Link Protection
+ Triangle: Full
+ Full-Mesh: Full
+ Square: Full, except C1 has no LFA for dest A1
+ Extended U: Full
Node Protection
+ Triangle: yes.
+ Full-Mesh: yes.
+ Square: yes.
+ Extended U: yes.
2. Inter Area Destinations
Link Protection
+ Triangle: Full
+ Full-Mesh: Full
+ Square: Full
+ Extended U: Full
Node Protection
+ Triangle: yes if e<c
+ Full-Mesh: yes for A failure, if e<c for C failure
+ Square: yes for A failure, if e<c for C failure
+ Extended U : yes if e<= c and c < a
3. uLoops
* Triangle: None
* Full-Mesh: None
* Square: None, except traffic to A1 when C1A1 fails
* Extended U : None, if a > e
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
4. Per-Link LFA vs Per-Prefix LFA
* Triangle: Same
* Full-Mesh: Same
* Square: Same except C1A1 has no per-Link LFA. In practice,
this means that per-prefix LFAs will be used (hence C1 has no
LFA for dest=E1 and dest=A1)
* Extended U : Same
4. Core Network
In the backbone, the optimization of the network design to achieve
the maximum LFA protection is less straightforward than in the case
of the access/aggregation network.
The main optimization objectives for backbone topology design are
cost, latency, and bandwidth, constrained by the availability of
fiber. Optimizing the design for Local IP restoration is more likely
to be considered as a non-primary objective. For example, the way
the fiber is laid out and the resulting cost to change it leads to
ring topologies in some backbone networks.
Also, the capacity planning process is already complex in the
backbone. It needs to make sure that the traffic matrix (demand) is
supported by the underlying network (capacity) under all possible
variation of the underlying network (what-if scenario related to one-
srlg failure). Classically, "supported" means that no congestion be
experienced and that the demands be routed along the appropriate
latency paths. Selecting LFA as a deterministic FRR solution for the
backbone would require to enhance the capacity planning process to
add a third constraint: each variation of the underlying network
should lead to a sufficient LFA coverage (we detail this aspect in a
following section).
To the contrary, the access network is based on many replications of
a small number of well-known (well-engineered) topologies. The LFA
coverage is deterministic and is independent of additions/insertions
of a new edge device, a new aggregation sub-region or a new access
region.
In practice, we believe that there are three profiles for the
backbone applicability of LFA.
In the first profile, the designer plans all the network resilience
on IGP convergence. In such case, LFA is a free bonus. If an LFA is
available, then the loss of connectivity is likely reduced by a
factor 10 (50msec vs 500msec), else the loss of connectivity depends
on IGP convergence which is anyway the initial target. LFA should be
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
very successful here as it provides a significant improvement without
any additional cost.
In the second profile, the designer seeks a very high and
deterministic FRR coverage and he either does not want or cannot
engineer the topology. LFA should not be considered in this case.
MPLS TE FRR would perform much better in this environment. Explicit
routing ensures that a backup path exists what-ever the underlying
topology.
In the third profile, the designer seeks a very high and
deterministic FRR coverage and he does engineer the topology. LFA is
appealing in this scenario as it can provide a very simple way to
obtain protection. Furthermore, in practice, the requirement for FRR
coverage might be limited to a certain part of the network, given by
a sub-topology and/or is likely limited to a subset of the demands
within the traffic matrix. In such case, if the relevant part of the
network natively provides a high degree of LFA protection for the
demands of interest, it might actually be straightforward to improve
the topology and achieve the level of protection required for the
sub-topology and demands which matter. Once again, the practical
problem needs to be considered (which sub-topology, which real
demands need 50msec) as it is often simpler than the theoretical
generic one.
For the reasons explained previously, the backbone applicability
should be analyzed on a case by case basis and it is difficult to
derive generic rules.
In order to help the reader to assess the LFA applicability in its
own case, we provide in the next section some simulation results
based on 11 real backbone topologies.
4.1. Simulation Framework
In order to perform an analysis of LFA applicability in the core, we
usually receive the complete IS-IS/OSPF linkstate database taken on a
core router. We parse it to obtain the topology. During this
process, we eliminate all nodes connected to the topology with a
single link and all prefixes except a single "node address" per
router. We compute the availability of per-prefix LFA's to all these
node addresses which we call "destinations" hereafter. We treat each
link in each direction.
For each (directed) link, we compute whether we have a per-prefix LFA
to the next-hop. If so, we have a per-link LFA for the link.
The Per-link-LFA coverage for a topology T is the fraction of the
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
number of links with a per-link LFA divided by the total number of
links.
For each link, we compute the number of destinations whose primary
path involves the analyzed link. For each such destination, we
compute whether a per-prefix LFA exists.
The Per-Prefix-LFA coverage for a topology T is the fraction:
(the sum across all links of the number of destinations with a
primary path over the link and a per-prefix LFA)
divided by
(the sum across all links of the number of destinations with a
primary path over the link)
4.2. Data Set
Our data set is based on 11 SP core topologies with different
geographical scopes: worldwide, national and regional. The number of
nodes range from 600 to 16. The average link-to-node ratio is 2.3
with a minimum of 1.2 and maximum of 6.
4.3. Simulation results
+----------+--------------+----------------+
| Topology | Per-link LFA | Per-prefix LFA |
+----------+--------------+----------------+
| T1 | 45% | 76% |
| T2 | 49% | 98% |
| T3 | 88% | 99% |
| T4 | 68% | 84% |
| T5 | 75% | 94% |
| T6 | 87% | 98% |
| T7 | 16% | 67% |
| T8 | 87% | 99% |
| T9 | 67% | 79% |
| T10 | 98% | 99% |
| T11 | 59% | 77% |
| Average | 67% | 89% |
| Median | 68% | 94% |
+----------+--------------+----------------+
Table 1: Core LFA Coverages
In Table 1, we observe a wide variation in terms of LFA coverage
across topologies; From 67% to 100% for the per-prefix LFA coverage,
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
and from 16% to 98% for the per-link LFA coverage. Several
topologies have been optimized for LFAs (T3, 6, 8 and 10). This
illustrates the need for case by case analysis when considering LFA
for core networks.
It should be noted that, to the contrary of the access/aggregation
topologies, per-prefix LFA outperforms per-link LFA in the backbone.
5. Core and Access protection schemes are independent
Specifically, a design might use LFA FRR in the access and MPLS TE
FRR in the core.
LFA provides great benefits for the access network due to its
excellent access coverage and its simplicity.
MPLS TE FRR's topology independence might prove beneficial in the
core when either the LFA FRR coverage is judged too small and/or the
designer feels unable to optimize the topology to improve the LFA
coverage.
6. Simplicity and other LFA benefits
The LFA solution provides significant benefits which mainly stem from
its simplicity.
The LFA behavior is an automated process that makes fast restoration
an intrinsic part of the IGP, with no additional configuration burden
in the IGP or any other protocol.
Thanks to this integration, the use of multiple areas in the IGP does
not make Fast Restoration more complex to achieve than in a single
area IGP design.
There is no requirement for network-wide upgrade as LFAs do not
require any protocol change and hence can be deployed router by
router.
With LFAs, the backup paths are pre-computed and installed in the
dataplane in advance of the failure. Assuming a fast enough FIB
update time compared to the total number of (important) destinations,
a "<50msec repair" requirement becomes achievable. With a prefix-
independent implementation, LFAs have a fixed repair time, as it only
depends on the failure detection time and the time to activate the
LFA behavior, which does not scale with the number of destinations to
be fast rerouted.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
Link and node protection are provided together and without
operational difference (as a comparison, MPLS TE FRR link and node
protections require different types of backup tunnels and different
grades of operational complexity).
Also, compared to MPLS TE FRR, an important simplicity aspect of LFA
is that is does not require the introduction of yet another virtual
layer of topology. Maintaining a virtual topology of explicit MPLS
TE tunnels clearly increases the complexity of the network. MPLS TE
tunnels would have to be represented in a network management system
in order to be monitored and managed. In large networks this may
significantly contribute to the number of network entities polled by
the network management system and monitored by operational staff.
LFA on the other hand only has to be monitored for its operational
status once per router and it needs to be considered in the network
planning process. If the latter is done based on offline simulations
for failure cases anyways, the incremental cost of supporting LFA for
a defined set of demands may be relatively low.
The per-prefix mode of LFAs allows for a simpler and more efficient
capacity planning. As the backup path of each destination is
optimized individually, the load to be fast rerouted can be spread on
a set of shortest-repair-paths (as opposed to one single backup
tunnel). This leads for a simpler and more efficient capacity
planning process that takes congestion during protection into
account.
7. Capacity Planning with LFA in mind
We briefly describe the functionality a designer should expect from a
capacity planning tool supporting LFA and the related capacity
planning process.
7.1. Coverage Estimation - Default Topology
Per-Link LFA Coverage Estimation: the tool would color each
unidirectional link in depending on whether per-link LFA is available
or not. Per-Prefix LFA Coverage Estimation: the tool would color
each unidirectional link with a colored gradient based on the % of
destinations which have a per-prefix LFA.
On top of the visual GUI reporting, the tool should provide detailed
tables listing, on a per interface basis: percentage of LFA, number
of prefixes with LFA, number without LFA, list of prefixes without
LFA.
Furthermore, the tool should provide the percentage and list the
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
traffic matrix demands with less than 100% source-to-destination LFA
coverage, and, average coverage (#links this demand has an LFA on/#
links this demands traverses) for every demands (using a threshold).
The user should be able to alter the color scheme to show whether
these LFAs are guaranteed-node-protecting or de-facto node protecting
or only link protecting.
This functionality provides the same level of information as we
described in sections 4.1 to 4.3.
7.2. Coverage estimation in relation to traffic
Instead of reporting the coverage as a ratio of the number of
destinations with a backup, one might prefer a ratio of the amount of
traffic on a link that benefits from protection.
This is likely much more relevant as not all destinations are equal
and it is much more important to have an LFA for a destination
attracting lots of traffic rather than an unpopular destination.
7.3. Coverage verification for a given set of demands
Depending on the requirements on the network it might be more
relevant to verify the complete LFA coverage of a given sub-topology,
or a given set of demands, rather than calculating the relative
coverage of the overall traffic. This is most likely true for the
third engineering profile described in Section 4.
In that case, the tool should be able to separately report the LFA
coverage on a given set of demands and highlight each part of the
network that does not support 100% coverage for any of those demands.
7.4. Modeling - What-if Scenarios - Coverage impact
The tool should be able to compute the coverage for all the possible
topologies that result from a set of expected failures (ie. one-srlg
failure).
Filtering the key information from the huge amount of generated data
should be a key property of the tool.
For example, the user could set a threshold (at least 80% per-prefix
LFA coverage in all one-srlg what-if scenarios) and the tool would
report only the cases where this condition is not met, hopefully with
some assistance on how to remedy the problem (IGP metric
optimization).
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
As an application example, a designer who is not able to ensure c < a
could leverage such a tool to assess the per-prefix LFA coverage for
square aggregation topologies grafted to its core backbone topology.
The tool would analyze the per-prefix LFA availability for each
remote destination and would help optimize the backbone topology to
increase the LFA protection coverage for failures within the square
aggregation topologies.
7.5. Modeling - What-if Scenarios - Load impact
The tool should be able to compute the link load for all routing
states that result from a set of expected failures (i.e. one-srlg
failure).
The routing states that should be supported are: 1/ network-wide
converged state before the failure, 2/ all the LFA's protecting the
failure are active and 3/ network-wide converged state after the
failure.
Filtering the key information from the huge amount of generated data
should be a key property of the tool.
For example, the user could set a threshold (at most 100% link load
in all one-srlg what-if scenarios) and the tool would report only the
cases where this condition is violated, hopefully with some
assistance on how to remedy the problem (IGP metric optimization).
The tool should be able to do this for the aggregate load and as well
on a per class of service basis.
Note: in case the traffic matrix is unknown, an intermediate solution
consists in identifying the destinations that would attract traffic
(i.e. PE routers), and those that would not (i.e. P routers). You
could achieve this by creating a traffic matrix with equal demands
between the sources/destinations that would attract traffic (Pe to
PE). This will be more relevant than considering all demands between
all prefixes (e.g. when there is no customer traffic from P to P).
7.6. Discussion on metric recommendations
While LFA FRR has many benefits (section 6), LFA FRR's applicability
depends on topology.
The purpose of this document is to show how to introduce a level of
control on this topology parameter.
On the one hand, we wanted to show that by adopting a small set of
igp metric constraints and a repetition of well-behaved patterns, the
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
designer could deterministically guarantee maximum link and node
protection for the vast majority of the network (the access/
aggregation). Doing so, he would obtain an extremely simple
resiliency solution.
One another side, we also wanted to show that it might not be so bad
to not apply (all) these constraints.
Indeed, we showed in section 3.3.4.3 that the per-prefix LFA coverage
in a square where c > a might still be very good.
We showed in section 4.3 that the median per-prefix LFA coverage for
11 SP backbone topologies still provides for 94% coverage (most of
these topologies were built without any idea of LFA)!
Furthermore, we showed that any topology may be analyzed with an LFA-
aware capacity planning tool. This would readily assess the coverage
of per-prefix LFA and would assist the designer in fine-tuning it to
obtain the level of protection he seeks.
While this document highlighted LFA applicability and benefits for SP
network, it also noted that LFA is not meant to replace MPLS TE FRR.
With a very-LFA-unfriendly topology, a designer seeking a guaranteed
< 50msec protection might be better off leveraging the explicit-
routed backup capability of MPLS TE FRR to provide 100% protection
while ensuring no congestion along the backup paths during
protection.
But when LFA provides 100% link and node protection without any
uLoop, then clearly LFA seems a technology to consider to drastically
simplify the operation of a large-scale network.
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations applicable to LFAs are described in
[RFC5286]. This document does not introduce any new security
considerations.
9. IANA considerations
This draft does not require any IANA considerations.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
10. Conclusions
LFA is an important protection alternative for IP/MPLS networks.
Its simplicity benefit is significant, in terms of automation and
integration with the default IGP behavior and the absence of any
requirement for network-wide upgrade. The technology does not
require any protocol change and hence can be deployed router by
router.
At first sight, these significant simplicity benefits are negated by
the topological dependency of its applicability.
The purpose of this document was to highlight that very frequent
access and aggregation topologies benefit from excellent link and
node LFA coverage.
A second objective consisted in describing the three different
profiles of LFA applicability for the IP/MPLS core networks and
illustrating them with simulation results based on real SP core
topologies.
11. Contributors
This work has been realized in tight collaboration with the following
people.
Mike Shand
imc.shand@googlemail.com
Bruno Decraene
France Telecom
38-40 rue du General Leclerc
92794 Issy Moulineaux cedex 9
FR
bruno.decraene@orange.com
James Uttaro
ATT
200 S. Laurel Avenue
07748, Middletown, NJ
US
uttaro@att.com
Nicolai Leymann
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
Deutsche Telekom
Winterfeldtstrasse 21
10781, Berlin
DE
N.Leymann@telekom.de
Martin Horneffer
Deutsche Telekom
Hammer Str. 216-226
48153, Muenster
DE
Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de
12. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Alvaro Retana and Stewart Bryant (in bold) for
their precious comments on this work.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.
13.2. Informative References
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, January 2010.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft LFA applicability in SP networks January 2012
Authors' Addresses
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Brussels 1000
BE
Email: cf@cisco.com
Pierre Francois
Institute IMDEA Networks
Avda. del Mar Mediterraneo, 22
Leganese 28918
ES
Email: pierre.francois@imdea.org
Clarence Filsfils & Pierre Francois Expires July 21, 2012 [Page 34]
