MPLS Traffic Engineering

MPLS Traffic Engineering
NANOG18
Robert Raszuk - IOS Engineering raszuk@cisco.com
1999, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Location of files
This presentation, handouts & demo are located at: ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/rraszuk/nanog18
RR_MPLS_TE_Nanog.pdf - this presentation
TE_Monitor.pdf - show & debug commands

TE_Config.pdf - full configuration syntax
TE_SampleCfg.pdf - configuration sample

TE_DEMO.tar - Tared TE offline demo (HTML) TEisistdp_1.pdf - Demos Lab Topology
NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk
Traffic Engineering: Motivations
Reduce the overall cost of operations by more efficient use of bandwidth resources
by preventing a situation where some parts of a service provider network are over-utilized (congested), while other parts under-utilized
The ultimate goal is cost saving !

Traffic Engineering: Motivations
MPLS and Traffic Eng allows for one to spread the traffic and distribute it across the entire network infrastructure like magnetic fields between poles while also providing the redundancy required for high availability service.
(Eric Dean)
Without Traffic Engineering

Cars:
SFO-LAX LAX-SFO SAN-SMF SMF-SAN
No Traffic Engineering
analogy
to Human Drivers
With Traffic Engineering

Cars:
SFO-LAX LAX-SFO SAN-SMF SMF-SAN
Traffic Engineering
analogy
to Auto Pilot
Routing solution to Traffic Engineering

R2 R3
R1
Construct routes for traffic streams within a service provider in such a way, as to avoids causing some parts of the providers network to be over-utilized, while others parts remain underutilized
The Overlay Solution

L3 L2 L3 L2 L2 L3 L2 L3 L2 L2 L3 L3 L3 L3
L3
L3
L3 L3
Physical
Logical
Routing at layer 2 (ATM or FR) is used for traffic engineering Analogy to direct highways between SFO-LAX & SAN-SMF. Nobody enters the highway in between.
Traffic engineering with overlay

R2 R3
R1
PVC for R2 to R3 traffic

PVC for R1 to R3 traffic
Overlay solution: drawbacks

Extra network devices (cost)
More complex network management (cost)
two-level network without integrated network management additional training, technical support, field engineering
IGP routing scalability issue for meshes Additional bandwidth overhead (cell tax)
10
Traffic engineering with Layer 3

R2 R3
R1
IP routing: destination-based least-cost routing
Path for R2 to R3 traffic

Path for R1 to R3 traffic under-utilized alternate path
11
Traffic engineering with Layer 3

R2 R3
R1
IP routing: destination-based least-cost routing
Path for R2 to R3 traffic

Path for R1 to R3 traffic under-utilized alternate path
12
Traffic engineering with Layer 3 what is missing ?

Path computation based just on IGP metric is not enough Support for explicit routing (aka source routing) is not available Analogy:
San Jose San Jose
13
MPLS Traffic Engineering
14
TE - key mechanisms
Explicit routing (aka source routing)

Constrained-based Path Selection Algorithm
(Example: Choose path with no congestion, avoid highways, select scenic roads etc)
Extensions to OSPF/ISIS for flooding of resources / policy information (Live collection of

traffic statistics - pilot tests in Europe)
MPLS as the forwarding mechanism (Auto Pilot

programmed in each car when entering city)
15
TE - key mechanisms
Explicit routing (aka source routing)

RSVP as the mechanism for establishing Label Switched Paths (LSPs) use of the explicitly routed LSPs in the forwarding table
16
What is a traffic trunk ?

A B
Aggregation of (micro) flows that are:

forwarded along a common path (within a service provider)
often from a POP to another POP share a common QoS requirement (if L-LSPs are used)
Essential for scalability

17
TE basics
Traffic within a Service Provider as a collection of POP to POP traffic trunks with known bandwidth and policy requirements
TE provides traffic trunk routing that meets the goal of Traffic Engineering
via a combination of on-line and offline procedures
18
Requirements:
Differentiating traffic trunks:
large, critical traffic trunks must be well routed in preference to other trunks
Handling failures:
automated re-routing in the presence of failures
Pre-configured paths:
for use in conjunction with the off-line route computation procedures
Support of multiple Classes of Service

19
Requirements (cont.)
Constraining sub-optimality:
should re-optimize on new/restored bandwidth
in a non-disruptive fashion - maintain the existing route until the new route is established, without any double counting
Ability to spread traffic trunk across multiple Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
could provide more efficient use of networking resources
Ability to include / exclude certain links for certain traffic trunks

20
Design Constraints
Constrained to a single routing domain
initially constrained to a single area
Requires OSPF or IS-IS

Unicast traffic
Focus on supporting routing based on a combination of administrative + bandwidth constraints
21
Trunks Attributes
22
Trunk Attributes
Configured at the head-end of the trunk Bandwidth
Priorities
setup priority: priority for taking a resource
holding priority: priority for holding a resource
23
Trunk attributes
Ordered list of Path Options
possible administratively specified paths (via an off-line central server) - {explicit list} Constrained-based Dynamically computed paths based on combo of Bw and policies
Re-optimization
each path option is enabled or not for reoptimization, interval given in seconds. Max 1 week (7*24*3600), Disable 0, Def 1h.
24
Trunk Attributes
Resource class affinity (Policy)
supports the ability to include/exclude certain links for certain traffic trunks based on a user-defined Policy Tunnel is characterized by a
32-bit resource-class affinity bit string 32-bit resource-class mask (0= dont care, I care)
Link is characterized by a 32-bit resource-class attribute string Default-value of tunnel/link bits is 0 Default value of the tunnel mask = 0x0000FFFF
25
Example0: 4-bit string, default

C A 0000 D 0000 0000 E 0000 0000 B
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0011
ADEB and ADCEB are possible

26
Example1a: 4-bit string

C A 0000 D 0000 0010 E 0000 0000 B
Setting a link bit in the lower half drives all tunnels off the link, except those specially configured
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0011
Only ADCEB is possible

27
Example1b: 4-bit string

C A 0000 D 0000 0010 E 0000 0000 B
A specific tunnel can then be configured to allow such links by clearing the bit in its affinity attribute mask
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0001
Again, ADEB and ADCEB are possible

28
Example1c: 4-bit string

C A 0000 D 0000 0010 E 0000 0000 B
A specific tunnel can be restricted to only such links by instead turning on the bit in its affinity attribute bits
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0010, t-mask = 0011
No path is possible
29
Example2a: 4-bit string

C A 0000 D 0000 0100 E 0000 0000 B
Setting a link bit in the upper half drives has no immediate effect
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0011
ADEB and ADCEB are both possible

30
Example2b: 4-bit string

C A 0000 D 0000 0100 E 0000 0000 B
A specific tunnel can be driven off the link by setting the bit in its mask
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0111
Only ADCEB is possible

31
Example2c: 4-bit string

C A 0000 D 0000 0100 E 0000 0000 B
A specific tunnel can be restricted to only such links Trunk A to B:

tunnel = 0100, t-mask = 0111
No path is possible
32
Trunk Attribute
Resource Class Affinity (Policy)
The user defines the semantics:

this bit/mask says low-delay path excluded
Flexible (maybe too flexible :)

1c vs 2c ? in 1c, the default tunnels will not be willing to flow via the special links
33
Link Attributes and their flooding
34
Link Resource Attributes
Resource attributes are configured on every link in a network

bandwidth
Link Attributes
TE-specific link metric
35
Link Resource Attributes
Resource attributes are flooded throughout the network

bandwidth per priority (0-7)
Link Attributes (Policy)

TE-specific link metric
draft-li-mpls-igp-te-00.txt
36
Per-Priority Available BW
D T=0 Link L, BW=100 D advertises: AB(0)=100== AB(7)=100 AB(i) = Available Bandwidth at priority I
T=1 T=2
Setup of a tunnel over L at priority=3 for 30 units D
Link L, BW=100
D advertises: AB(0)=AB(1)=AB(2)=100 AB(3)=AB(4)==AB(7)=70
T=3
Setup of an additional tunnel over L at priority=5 for 30 units
D T=4
Link L, BW=100
D advertises: AB(0)=AB(1)=AB(2)=100 AB(3)=AB(4)=70 AB(5)=AB(6)=AB(7)=40

37
Information Distribution
Re-use the flooding service from the Link-State IGP

opaque LSA for OSPF
draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-00.txt
new wide TLV for IS-IS

draft-ietf-isis-traffic-00.txt
38
Information Distribution
Periodic (timer-based) On significant changes of available bandwidth (threshold scheme)
On link configuration changes

On LSP Setup failure
39
Periodic Timer
Periodically, a node checks if the current TE status is the same as the one lastly broadcasted.
If different, it floods its updated TE Links status
40
Significant Change
Each time a threshold is crossed, an update is sent
100% 92% 85% 70%
Update
50%
Update
Denser population as utilization increases

Different thresholds for UP and Down (stabler)
41
LSP Setup Failure
Due to the threshold scheme, it is possible that one node thinks he can signal an LSP tunnel via node Z while in fact, Z does not have the required resources
When Z receives the Resv message and refuses the LSP tunnel, it broadcasts an update of its status
42
Constrained-based Computation
43
Constrained-Based Routing
In general, path computation for an LSP may seek to satisfy a set of requirements associated with the LSP, taking into account a set of constraints imposed by administrative policies and the prevailing state of the network -- which usually relates to topology data and resource availability. Computation of an engineered path that satisfies an arbitrary set of constraints is referred to as "constraint based routing.
Draft-li-mpls-igp-te-00.txt
44
Path Computation
On demand by the trunks head-end:
for a new trunk
for an existing trunk whose (current) LSP failed for an existing trunk when doing reoptimization
45
Path Computation
Input:
configured attributes of traffic trunks originated at this router attributes associated with resources
available from IS-IS or OSPF

topology state information
available from IS-IS or OSPF

46
Path Computation
Prune links if:
insufficient resources (e.g., bandwidth) violates policy constraints
Compute shortest distance path

TE uses its own metric Tie-break: selects the path with the highest minimum bandwdith so far, then with the smallest hop-count
47
Path Computation
Output:
explicit route - expressed as a sequence of router IP addresses interface addresses for numbered links loopback address for unnumbered links used as an input to the path setup component
48
Example
C 1000 BW(3)=60 BW(3)=80 0100 0000 BW(3)=20 0000 BW(3)=80
0000 BW(3)=50
D 1000 BW(3)=50
E 0010 BW(3)=70
Tunnels request:
Priority 3, BW = 30 units, Policy string: 0000, mask: 0011
49
MPLS as the forwarding mechanism
50
MPLS Labels
Two types of MPLS Labels:
Prefix Labels & Tunnel Labels LDP

Distributed by:
RSVP CR-LDP
MP-BGP PIM
51
MPLS as forwarding engine

Traffic engineering requires explicit routing capability IP supports only the destination-based routing
not adequate for traffic engineering
MPLS provides simple and efficient support for explicit routing

label swapping separation of routing and forwarding
52
LSP tunnel Setup
53
RSVP Extensions to RFC2205 for LSP Tunnels

downstream-on-demand label distribution instantiation of explicit label switched paths allocation of network resources (e.g., bandwidth) to explicit LSPs rerouting of established LSP-tunnels in a smooth fashion using the concept of make-before-break tracking of the actual route traversed by an LSP-tunnel
diagnostics on LSP-tunnels
the concept of nodal abstraction preemption options that are administratively controllable draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-0X.txt
54
RSVP Extensions: new objects

LABEL_REQUEST found in Path LABEL found in Resv EXPLICIT_ROUTE found in Path RECORD_ROUTE found in Path, Resv SESSION_ATTRIBUTE found in Path 0x01 Fast Reroute Capable, 0x02 Permit Merging, 0x04 May Reoptimize => SE
New C-Types are also assigned for the SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE, FILTER_SPEC, FLOWSPEC objects.
All new objects are optional with respect to RSVP (RFC2205).
The LABEL_REQUEST and LABEL objects are mandatory with respect to MPLS LSP signalisation specification.
55
LSP Setup
Initiated at the head-end of a trunk Uses RSVP (with extensions) to establish Label Switched Paths (LSPs) for traffic trunks
56
Path Setup - Example

R8 R9
R3
R4 R2 R1
Label 49 Label 17 Pop
R5
Label 32
R6
R7
Label 22
Setup: Path (ERO = R1->R2->R6->R7->R4->R9) Reply: Resv communicates labels and reserves bandwidth on each link
57
Path Setup - more details

R1 2 1 R2 R3 2 1
Path: Common_Header Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R1-2) Label_Request(IP) ERO (R2-1, R3-1) Session_Attribute (S(3), H(3), 0x04) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) Sender_Tspec(2Mbps) Record_Route(R1-2)
58

R1 2 1 R2 R3 2 1
Path State: Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R1-2) Label_Request(IP) ERO (R2-1, R3-1) Session_Attribute (S(3), H(3), 0x04) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) Sender_Tspec(2Mbps) Record_Route (R1-2)
59

R1 2 1 R2 R3 2 1
Path: Common_Header Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R2-2) Label_Request(IP) ERO (R3-1) Session_Attribute (S(3), H(3), 0x04) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) Sender_Tspec(2Mbps) Record_Route (R1-2, R2-2)
60

R1 2 1 R2 R3 2 1
Path State: Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R2-2) Label_Request(IP) ERO () Session_Attribute (S(3), H(3), 0x04) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) Sender_Tspec(2Mbps) Record_Route (R1-2, R2-2, R3-1)
61

R1 2 1 R2 R3 2 1
Resv: Common_Header Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R3-1) Style=SE FlowSpec(2Mbps) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) Label=POP Record_Route(R3-1)
62

R1 2 1 R2 R3 2 1
Resv State Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R3-1) Style=SE FlowSpec (2Mbps) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) OutLabel=POP IntLabel=5 Record_Route(R3-1)
63

R1 2 1 R2 R3 2 1
Resv: Common_Header Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R2-1) Style=SE FlowSpec (2Mbps) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) Label=5 Record_Route(R2-1, R3-1)
64

R1 2 1 R2 R3 2 1
Resv state: Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R2-1) Style=SE FlowSpec (2Mbps) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) Label=5 Record_Route(R1-2, R2-1, R3-1)
65
Trunk Admission Control

Performed by routers along a Label Switched Path (LSP)
Determines if resources are available

May tear down (existing) LSPs with a lower priority Does the local accounting
Triggers IGP information distribution when resource thresholds are crossed

66
Link Admission Control

Already invoked by Path message
if BW is available, this BW is put aside in a waiting pool (waiting for the RESV msg) if this process required the pre-emption of resources, LCAC notified RSVP of the pre-emption which then sent PathErr and/or ResvErr for the preempted tunnel if BW is not available, LCAC says No to RSVP and a Path error is sent. A flooding of the nodes resource info is triggered, if needed draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-02.txt
67
Path Monitoring
Use of new Record Route Object

keep track of the exact tunnel path
detects loops
copy of RRO to ERO allows for route pinning
68
Path Re-Optimization
Looks for opportunities to re-optimize

make before break no double counting of reservations via RSVP shared explicit style!
69
Non-disruptive rerouting - new path setup

R8 R9
R3
R4 R2 R1
49 17 Pop
R5
32
R6
R7
22
Current Path (ERO = R1->R2->R6->R7->R4->R9) New Path (ERO = R1->R2->R3->R4->R9) - shared with Current Path Until R9 gets new Path Message, current Resv is refreshed
70
Non-disruptive rerouting switching paths

R8 R9
R3
R4 R2
89
26 Pop Pop
R1
38 49 17
R5
32
R6
R7
22
Resv: allocates labels for both paths Reserves bandwidth once per link PathTear can then be sent to remove old path (and release resources)
71
Reroute - More Details

Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) ERO (R2-1, R3-1) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00)
00 R1 2 1 R2 2 01 R3 1 3 01
3 01
Resource Sharing
ERO (R2-1, , R3-3) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 01)
72

R1 2 1 R2 R3 2 3 1
Path: Common_Header Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R1-2) Label_Request(IP) ERO (R2-1, ,R3-3) Session_Attribute (S(3), H(3), 0x04) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 01) Sender_Tspec(3Mbps) Record_Route(R1-2)
73

R1 2 1 R2 R3 3 3
Path State: Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R1-2) Label_Request(IP) ERO (R2-1, ,R3-3) Session_Attribute (S(3), H(3), 0x04) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 01) Sender_Tspec(3Mbps) Record_Route (R1-2)
74

R1 2 1 R2 R3 3 3
75

R1 2 1 R2 R3 3 3
RSVP: Common_Header Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R3-3) Style=SE FlowSpec(3Mbps) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 01) Label=POP Record_Route(R3-3)
76

R1 2 1 R2 R3 3 3
77

R1 2 1 R2 R3 3 3
RSVP: Common_Header Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R2-1) Style=SE FlowSpec (3Mbps) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 01) Label=6 Record_Route(R2-1, , R3-3) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) Label=5 Record_Route(R2-1, R3-1)
78

R1 2 1 R2 R3 3 3
RSVP state: Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0) PHOP(R2-1) Style=SE FlowSpec Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 01) Label=6 Record_Route(R2-1, , R3-3) Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00) Label=5 Record_Route(R2-1, R3-1)
79
Fast Restoration
Handling link failures - two complementary mechanisms:

Path protection Link/Node protection
80
Path Protection
81
Path Protection
Step1: link failure detection
O(depends on L2/L1)
Step2a: IGP reaction (ISIS case)

Either via Step1 or via IGP hello expiration (30s by default for ISIS) 5s (default) must occur by default before the generation of a new LSP 5.5s (default) must occur before a change of the LSPDB and the consecutive SPF run. The next SPF run can only occur 10s after (default) Flooding time (LSP are paced (16ms for first LSP, 33ms between LSPs, depend also on link speed) Once the RIB is updated, this change must be incorporated into CEF. The Head-end finally computes the new topology and finds out that some established LSPs are affected. It schedules a reoptimization for them
82
Path Protection
Step2b: RSVP signalisation

rsvp path states with the failed intf as oif is detected
check if another oif available (if loose ero) if not, clear path state and send tear to head-end Step2: Either stepA or stepB alarms the head-end Step3: Re-optimization
dijkstra computation: O(0.5)ms per node (rule of thumb)
RSVP signalisation time to instal rerouted tunnel convergence in the order of several seconds (at least).
83
Path Protection Speed it Up
Fine Tune the IGP convergence

Through adequate tuning, ISIS could be tuned to converge in 2-3s, this ensuring that the convergence time bottleneck is the signalisation time for the new tunnel.
Several tunnels in parallel with load-babalancing

if combined with the IGP convergence, the path resilience could be brought to around 2-3s
One end-2-end tunnel in parallel but in backup mode

feature under development (Fast Path Protection)
84
Fast ReRoute (aka Link Protection) An Overview
85
Objective
FRR allows for temporarily routing around a failed link or node while the head-end may reoptimize the entire LSP
rerouting under 50ms
scalable (must support lots of LSPs)

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk 86
Fast reroute Overview

Controlled by the routers at ends of a failed link
link protection is configured on a per link basis
Session_Attributes Flag 0x01 allows the use of Link Protection for the signalled LSP
Uses nested LSPs (stack of labels)

original LSP nested within link protection LSP
87
Static backup Tunnel

R8 R4 R2 R1
17
R9
R5
Pop
R6
R7
22
Setup: Path (R2->R6->R7->R4) Labels Established on Resv message
88
Routing prior R2-R4 link failure

R8 R4 R2 R9
Pop
R1
14
37
R6
R7
R5
Setup: Path (R1->R2->R4->R9) Labels Established on Resv message
89
Link Protection Active

R8 R4 R2 R1 R5 R9
R6
R7
On failure of link from R2 -> R4, R2 simply changes outgoing Label Stack from 14 to <17, 14>
90
Link Protection Active

R8 Swap 37->14 Push 17 Pop 14 R4 R9
R2
Push 37 R1
R5
R6 Swap 17->22
R7 Pop 22
Label Stack:
R1 37
R2 17 14
R6 22 14
R7 14
R4
R9 None
91
Fast ReRoute More details on Link Protection (FRR v1)
92
V1 Constrain
We protect the facility (link), not individual LSPs
scalability vs granularity
No node resilience
Static backup tunnel
The protected link must use the Global Label space

A backup tunnel can backup at most one link, but n LSPs travelling via this link
93
Terminology
R8 R4 R2 R5
R9
R1
R6
R7
LSP: end-to-end tunnel onto which data normally flows (eg R1 to R9) BackUp tunnel: temporary route to take in the event of a failure
94
Terminology
Link Protection
In the event of a link failure, an LSP is rerouted to the next-hop using a preconfigured backup tunnel
95
How to indicate a link is protected and which tunnel is the backup?
On R2 (For LSPs flowing from R2 to R4):

interface pos <r2tor4> mpls traffic-eng backup tunnel 1000 link
LSPs are unidirectional, so the same protection should be enable for the opposite direction if reverse LSP is conf.
96
How to setup the backup tunnel?

Just as a normal tunnel whose headend is R2 and tail-end is R4
v1 requires a manually configured ERO
interface Tunnel1000 ip unnumbered Loopback0 tunnel destination R4 tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7 tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 800 tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 explicit name backuppath1
ip explicit-path name backuppath1 enable next-address R6 next-address R7 next-address R4
97
Which LSPs can be rerouted on R2 in the event of R2-R4 failure?
The LSPs flowing through R2 that

have R2-R4 as Outgoing Interface have been signalled by their respective head-ends with a session attribute flag 0x01=ON (may use fastreroute tunnels)
int tunnel 1
## config on the head-end
tunnel mpls traffic-eng fast-reroute

98
Global Label Allocation

R8 14 R2 R1 R5
POP
R4
R9
R6
R7
For the blue LSP, R4 bound a global label of 14 Any MPLS frame received by R4, with label 14, will be switched onto the link to R9 with a POP, whatever the incoming interface
99
How fast is fast?

Link Failure Notification
Usual PoS alarm detection PoS driver optimisation to interrupt RP in < 1ms
Expected call to net_cstate(idb, UP/DOWN) identifying the DOWN state of the protected int to start our protection action.
RP updates the master TFIB (replace a swap by a swap-push)

< 1ms
Master TFIB change notified to the linecards

< 1ms
100
Path state while Rerouting

Path (, PHOP=R2, )
R8 BackUP tunnel
Path state
R4
R9
R2 R1 R5
R6
R7
PathError (Reservation in Place)
101
Path & Resv Msgs [Error & Tear]

R1
R2
R3
R4
When no link protection:

Resv Tear Conf. Path Tear Resv Tear Conf.
When link protection:

Path Error Resv in place
R4 waits for refresh
102
LSP reoptimization
Head-end notified by PathError

special flag (reservation in place) indicates that the path states must not be destroyed. It is just a hint to the head-end that the path should be reoptimized
Head-end notified by IGP

103
Why the Patherror?
The Patherror might be faster

In case of multi-area IGP, the IGP will not provide the information
In case of very fast up-down-up, the LSP will be put on the backup tunnel and will stay there as the IGP will not have originated a new LSP/LSA
a router waits a certain time before originating a new LSP/LSA after a topological change
Reliable PathErr optimization

104
Resv state while Rerouting

The loss of the interface does not affect the Path and Resv states for the LSPs received on that interface that are marked fast reroutable!
R8 R9
Resv state
R2 R1
BackUP tunnel
R4 R5
Resv
R6 R7
Resv Message is unicast to the Phop (R2)
R2s Path State has been informed that the Resv might arrive over a different intf as the one used by the Path message
105
DiffServ and LSP Reoptimization
In order to optimize the bandwdith usage, backup tunnels might be configured with 0kbps
no non-working bandwdith as in SDH!
Although usually the backbone is though as being congestion-free, during rerouting some local congestion might occur
Use diffserv to handle this short-term congestion
Use LSP reoptimization to handle the long-term congestion
106
Layer1/2 and Layer3
Backup Tunnel should not use

the protected L3 link
the protected L1/L2 links!!!
Use WANDL (loaded with both L3 and L1/2 topologies) to compute the best paths for backup tunnels
Download this as static backup tunnels to the routers
107
Fast ReRoute Node Protection
108
Overview
R8
R9
R4 R3
R2
R1
R5
R7 R6
Backup Tunnel to the next-hop of the LSPs next-hop

109
A few More details

Assume
R2 is configured with resilience for R3
R2 receives a path message for a new LSP whose ERO is {R3, R4, }, whose Session is (R9, 1, R1), whose sender is (R1, 1) and whose session attribute is (0x01 ON, 0x02 OFF) 0x01: may use local fast-reroute if available 0x02: merge capable
110
A few More details
Then
R2 checks if it already has a tunnel to R4 If not, R2 builds a backup tunnel to R4 (currently just like in link protection - manual explicit setup). R2 sends a Path onto the tunnel with Session (R9, 1, R1), Sender (R2, 1), Session Attribute (0x01 OFF, 0x02 ON) and PHOP R2
111
A few More details
When R4 receives this Path message,

it matches the session with the LSPs one
merge (and thus stop) this path message
sends a RESV back to R2 (unicast) and allocate the appropriate label L
112
A few More details

When R2 detects R3s failure,
For the TFIB entry for the LSP, R2 changes the existing swap by a swap to L and a push of the backup tunnel label
R4s states are refreshed by the secondary path messages (over the backup tunnels)
ERO of the original path is adjusted at R2 NHOP is modified in R2 (from R3 to R4) PHOP is modified in R4 (from R3 to R2)
113
A few More Details
RESV is being sent back from R4 to R2 directly If R3 is still active and just the R2-R3 link failed R4 needs to ignore & drop any Tear-Down msg R3 would be sending after the termination of reception of path refreshes from R2.
114
How to detect R3s failure?
A node may fail while the link is still up A nodes linecard processes might survive, a main process failure (freeze of the RP process)
115
A possible solution
RP RP
LC ... LC
LC
Keepalives between LCs Keepalives between a LC and its master RP

116
Assigning traffic to Paths (aka autoroute)
117
Enhancement to SPF
During SPF each new node found is moved from a TENTative list to PATHS list. Now the first-hop is being determined via:
A. Check if there is any TE tunnel terminating at this node from the current router and if so do the metric check B. If there is no TE tunnel and the node is directly connected use the first-hop from adj database C. In non of the above applies the first-hop is copied from the parent of this new node.
118
Enhancement to SPF - metric check

Tunnel metric:
A. Relative +/- X
B. Absolute Y The default is relative metric of 0. Example: Metric of native IP path to the found node = 50 1. Tunnel with relative metric of -10 => 2. Tunnel with relative metric of +10 => 40 60
3. Tunnel with absolute metric of 10 =>

10
119
Enhancement to SPF - metric check
If the metric of the found TE tunnel at this node is higher then the metric for other tunnels or native IGP path this tunnel is not installed as next hop
If the metric of the found TE tunnel is equal to other TE tunnels the tunnel is added to the existing nexthops If the metric of the found TE tunnel is lower then the metric of other TE tunnels or native IGP the tunnel replaces them as the only next-hop.
120
Other TE New Features
121
Auto-Bandwidth
Global command:
Monitor marked tunnels 5-min average counters every X minutes

default: X = 300 (seconds) (config)# mpls traffic-eng auto-bw
timers frequency <seconds>
122
Auto-Bandwidth
Per tunnel command:
Every Y minutes, update the BW constraint of the tunnel with the maximum of:
the largest 5-min values sampled during the last Y minutes (Def Y = 24 * 3600sec) - 24h a configured maximum value (config-if)# tunnel mpls traffic-eng auto-bw
{frequency <seconds>} {max-bw <kbs>}
if the new Bw is not available, the old one is maintained (the new BW is signalled via a 2nd tunnel to follow make before break model)
123
Example
124
Verbatim
Applies to explicitly routed LSPs Disable any check against TE/IGP database of the head end RSVP still check BW (and policy when this will be in Path) hop by hop Application: manual TE through multi-area IGP
CLI: tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option verbatim
125
In-Progress
Allows an end-head to account for bw consumed by tunnels that it has just signalled and for whom the IGP LSA/LSP update has not reflected the available bandwdith
126
Example
In-Prog Bw: 55 10 Avail Bw: 100
All tunnels require 45 units of BW In-progress counters reset upon new LSA/LSP reception In-progress counter decremented upon receipt of path-error
127
Benefits
Speed-up the installation of tunnels as it avoids spending time trying not working solutions Allows for better load-balancing
igp metric then max(min(path-bw)!
128
Under/Overbook
ML: Maximum link bandwidth:
This sub-TLV contains the maximum bandwidth that can be used on this link in this direction (from the system originating the LSP to its neighbors). This is useful for traffic engineering.
MR: Maximum reservable link bandwidth:

This sub-TLV contains the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be reserved in this direction on this link. Note that for oversubscription purposes, this can be greater than the bandwidth of the link.
UR(I): Unreserved bandwidth at Priority i:

This sub-TLV contains the amount of bandwidth reservable on this direction on this link, at a certain priority. Note that for oversubscription purposes, this can be greater than the bandwidth of the link.
129
Under/Overbook
As config: int s0 bandwidth <B1> ip rsvp bandwdith <B2>
(eg 1500 kbps) (eg 4000 kbps)
...
Physical T1
s0
...
ML is set to B1 (eg 1500) MR is set to B2 (eg 4000)
At t=0, for all i 0 to 7, UB(i) = M = (eg 4000)

routerA's LCAC will not accept an LSP tunnel asking more than ML even if there is available bandwdith at the requested priority. However, LCAC would allow for example 5 trunks each asking 700 kbps (thus each asking less than ML) while the aggregate is smaller than MR: because { 700 < ML=1500 } and { 3500 < MR=4000 }
130
Standby
Current solution
Tu1: bw1 A B
Tu2: bw2
Tu3: bw3 Tu4: bw4
Solution:
4 tunnels from A to B:
Tu1s relative metric: -3
Tu2 and tu3s relative metric: -2

Tu4s relative metric: -1
131
Last hop label

IETF draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-07.txt
A value of 0 represents the "IPv4 Explicit NULL Label
A value of 1 represents the "Router Alert Label

A value of 2 represents the "IPv6 Explicit NULL Label"
A value of 3 represents the "Implicit NULL Label

New cli forces tailend to send implicit-null (3) instead of explicit null (0) - default. # [no] mpls traffic-eng signalling advertise implicit-null [<acl>] On receipt (n-1) node we must map 0, 1 or 3 to internal Implicit Null [1 only for historical reasons]
132
QoS and RRR
133
QoS and RRR
MPLS TE can operate simultaneously (and orthogonally) with MPLS Diff-Serv All Precedence/DSCP packets follow the same TE tunnels
Diff-Serv provides selective discard (via WRED), and selective scheduling (via WFQ)
134
QoS and RRR

Future:
Scalable per-tunnel scheduling and policing
Guaranteed PIPE in MPLS-VPN CoS
per-DSCP/per-FEC traffic engineering

diffserv backbone capacity management
135
DiffServ and fast-reroute/TE
In order to optimize the bandwdith usage, backup tunnels might be configured with 0kbps
no non-working bandwdith as in SDH!
Although usually the backbone is though as being congestion-free, during rerouting some local congestion might occur
Use diffserv to handle this short-term congestion
Use LSP reoptimization to handle the long-term congestion
136
RSVP LSP Signalling Protocol for Traffic Engineering
137
MPLS-TE Signalling Protocol
Two proposed signaling mechanisms for MPLS traffic engineering are being considered by the IETFs MPLS work group
RSVP (Cisco and a number of Gigabit router startups (Avici, Argon, Ironbridge, Juniper, and Torrent)) CR-LDP (Ericsson, Ennovate, GDC, Nortel)
138
Why RSVP ?
What is needed: An IP signalling Protocol!
ability to establish and maintain Label Switched Path along an explicit route
ability to reserve resources when establishing a path
Interdependent, not independent tasks

benefit from consolidation
139
Do I need RSVP only for TE ?

NO !
Other uses of RSVP in todays networks:

Voice over IP call setup, Video (IPTV)
Hybrid deployments (only where needed)

QoS DiffServ Engineering (Cops) Qualitative Service for DiffServ with RSVP
(as opposed to Quantitative RSVP IntServ model)
140
RSVP is a natural choice
RFC2205: provides a general facility for creating and maintaining distributed reservation state across a mesh of multicast and unicast delivery paths TE: use as a general facility for creating and maintaining distributed forwarding & reservation state across a mesh of delivery paths
141

RFC2205: transfers and manipulates QoS control parameters as opaque data, passing them to the appropriate traffic control module for interpretation
TE: transfer and manipulate explicit route and label control parameters as opaque data pass explicit route parameter to the appropriate routing module, and label parameter to the MPLS module
142

Leverage Standardized Protocols
PIM for Multicast MPLS
BGP for MPLS VPNs
RSVP for MPLS Traffic Engineering

LDP (TDP) has been designed because it was easier than fixing all IGPs (RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, ISIS)
fast deployments and engineering consistency
Leverage Deployed Experience

RSVP deployed since 1996 (IOS 11.2) ww.isi.edu/rsvp/DOCUMENTS/ietf_rsvp_qos_survey for a list of RSVP implementations
143
RSVP easily supports

Dynamic resizing of tunnels or paths through refresh messages Supports strict as well as loose source routes
No double counting of bandwidth when rerouting sub-optimal routes
Extensible via definition of new objects

144
RSVP/TE and Scalability

Very Different than IntServ context
State applies to a collection of flows (i.e. a traffic trunk), rather than to a single (micro) flow RSVP sessions are used between routers, not hosts
Sessions are long-lived (up to a few weeks)

Paths are not bound by destination-based routing Reference: Applicability Statement for Extensions to RSVP for LSP-Tunnels (draft-awduche-mpls-rsvp-tunnelapplicability-01.txt)
145
RSVP/TE and Scalability

Very Different than IntServ context
RFC2208: the resource requirements for running RSVP on a router increases proportionally with the number of separate sessions
TE: that is why using traffic trunks to aggregate flows is essential

RFC2208: supporting numerous small reservations on a high-bandwidth link may easily overtax the routers and is inadvisable TE : n/a in the context of TE - traffic trunks aggregate multiple flows
146
TE/RSVP Scalability
With basic RSVP (RFC2205), 10000 RRR LSP tunnels flowing through a 75x0 or 12000 is not a problem Already Deployed on a number of Tier-1 ISP backbones
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9905/hanna.html
Ship with 12.0(5)S
Refresh Aggregation work will again enhance this scalability
147
Conclusion
Using RSVP as MPLS/TE signalling protocol is the natural and consistent choice
It is however only one part of a whole solution:

MPLS as forwarding engine IGP (OSPF/ISIS) extensions Constrained Base Routing (RRR) RSVP as MPLS/TE Signalling Protocol
Installation of Tunnels in the FIB

148
Summary
149
Traffic Eng
Provides traffic engineering capabilities at Layer 3

above and beyond of what is provided with ATM
Could be used for other applications as well Shipping and deployed in production
150
Presentation_ID
151

MPLS Traffic Engineering

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MPLS Traffic Engineering

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MPLS Traffic Engineering

1999, Cisco Systems, Inc.

TE_Monitor.pdf - show & debug commands

TE_SampleCfg.pdf - configuration sample

Traffic Engineering: Motivations

The ultimate goal is cost saving !

Traffic Engineering: Motivations

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Without Traffic Engineering

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

With Traffic Engineering

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Routing solution to Traffic Engineering

The Overlay Solution

Traffic engineering with overlay

PVC for R2 to R3 traffic

Overlay solution: drawbacks

Traffic engineering with Layer 3

IP routing: destination-based least-cost routing

Path for R2 to R3 traffic

Traffic engineering with Layer 3

IP routing: destination-based least-cost routing

Path for R2 to R3 traffic

Traffic engineering with Layer 3 what is missing ?

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.