draft-francois-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Seamless MPLS draft-leymann-mpls-seamless-mpls-02.txt
Advertisements

U-turn Alternates for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute draft-atlas-ip-local-protect-uturn-01.txt Alia Atlas Gagan Choudhury
Micro-loop Prevention Methods draft-bryant-shand-lf-conv-frmwk-00.txt draft-zinin-microloop-analysis-00.txt.
1 Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs draft-tsaad-ccamp-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-05 Author.
IP Fast Reroute Using Tunnel-AT draft-xu-ipfrr-tunnelat-00 Mingwei Xu, Lingtao Pan, Qing Li Tsinghua University, China 75 th IETF Meeting, Stockholm July.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 MPLS Scale to 100k endpoints with resiliency and simplicity Clarence.
© 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 1 Segment Routing Clarence Filsfils – Distinguished Engineer Christian Martin –
Routing Protocol.
Sub-IP Layer Protection Mechanism Performance Benchmarking draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-05 draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04 November 17, 2008 Rajiv.
Dynamic Routing Scalable Infrastructure Workshop, AfNOG2008.
PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-01
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. ROUTE v1.0—5-1 Implementing Path Control Lab 5-1 Debrief.
IETF Prague Multicast-only Fast ReRoute (MoFRR) Clarence Filsfils Apoorva Karan Dino Farinacci March, 2011.
Draft-atlas-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-01IETF 82 RTGWG: 17 Nov IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees draft-atlas-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-01.
University of the Western Cape Chapter 11: Routing Aleksandar Radovanovic.
1 © 2003, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. CCNA 2 Module 6 Routing and Routing Protocols.
Routing Area WG (rtgwg) IETF 90 – London Chairs: Alvaro Retana Jeff Tantsura
Draft-francois-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00 Pierre Francois, IMDEA Networks Institute Clarence Filsfils, Ahmed Bashandy, Cisco Systems Bruno Decraene, Stephane.
BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
IP fast reroute s olutions and challenges Amund Kvalbein.
Routing and Routing Protocols
OSI Reference Model. Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Model International standard organization (ISO) established a committee in 1977 to develop an.
Fast recovery in IP networks using Multiple Routing Configurations Amund Kvalbein Simula Research Laboratory.
On Improving the Efficiency and Manageability of NotVia Ang Li †, Pierre Francois ‡, and Xiaowei Yang † † UCIrvine ‡ Université catholique de Louvain CoNext.
Routing Area WG (rtgwg) IETF 89 – London Chairs: Alvaro Retana Jeff Tantsura
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. ROUTE v1.0—2-1 Implementing an EIGRP-Based Solution Lab 2-2 Debrief.
© 2005 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. BGP v3.2—3-1 Route Selection Using Policy Controls Using Multihomed BGP Networks.
Extended procedures and Considerations for Loop Free Alternatives draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures-01 Uma Chunduri Ericsson Inc. Jeff Tantsura.
1 RSVP-TE Extensions For Fast Reroute of Bidirectional Co-routed LSPs draft-tsaad-mpls-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-00.txt Author list: Mike Taillon
Segment Routing: An Architecture build with SDN in mind and addressing the evolving network requirements Brian Meaney Cisco SP Consulting Team.
Prof. Alfred J Bird, Ph.D., NBCT Office – Science 3rd floor – S Office Hours – Monday and Thursday.
EDCS IETF 81, Jul/2011, Quebec City, Canadadraft-bashandy-idr-bgp-repair-label-02 Scalable Loop Free BGP FRR Using Repair Label draft-bashandy-idr-bgp-repair-label-02.
Routing and Routing Protocols CCNA 2 v3 – Module 6.
Instructor Materials Chapter 7: EIGRP Tuning and Troubleshooting
Introduction to Dynamic Routing Protocol
Working at a Small-to-Medium Business or ISP – Chapter 6
draft-litkowski-rtgwg-node-protect-remote-lfa
P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels
Presenter: Jeffrey Zhang
Routing Protocols and Concepts
Link-State Routing Protocols
draft-francois-spring-resiliency-use-case-00
Explicitly advertising the TE protocols enabled on links in OSPF
Loop protection and IPFRR
PLR Designation in RSVP-TE FRR
Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-06 Authors: Mike Taillon.
Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP- based LSPs
Zhenbin Li, Shunwan Zhuang Huawei Technologies
Link-State Routing Protocols
ISIS extensions for SRv6 draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-02
Authors : Francois Clad, Cisco (presenter) Xiaoahu Xu, Alibaba
LSP Fast-Reroute Using RSVP Detours
Routing Protocols Charles Warren.
Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing draft-gulkohegde-spring-separating-routing-planes-using-sr-00 IETF 98 – Chicago, USA Shraddha Hegde
ISIS extensions for SRv6 draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-00
Segment Routing.
Update on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12
Link-State Routing Protocols
Working at a Small-to-Medium Business or ISP – Chapter 6
Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP- based LSPs
BGP-Based SPF IETF 98, Chicago
COMPUTER NETWORKS CS610 Lecture-16 Hammad Khalid Khan.
DSDV Destination-Sequenced Distance-Vector Routing Protocol
Achieving Resilient Routing in the Internet
draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00
ISIS extensions for SRv6 draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-03
draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-04
draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm-03
Large-Scale Deterministic Network Update
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-05
Presentation transcript:

draft-francois-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00 Pierre Francois, IMDEA Networks Institute Clarence Filsfils, Ahmed Bashandy, Cisco Systems Bruno Decraene, Stephane Litkowski, Orange IETF 89, RTGWG WG

Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing Local protection of traffic against sudden failures of links and nodes IP-FRR behavior when SR comes into play Topology Independent coverage Full coverage for link and node protection Segment Routing Leveraging the SR architecture allows to enforce any failover path

Which failover path? New in IP-FRR: Post-convergence path from the PLR to the destination B C E A D F 100 100 100 100 PE1 PE2 LFA TI-LFA

Why that choice? Post-convergence path SR: No need for TLDP sessions Typically in line with capacity planning Easy to predict SR: No need for TLDP sessions Useless to favor LFA over RLFA over… Easier to provide the path that the operators actually want

Exercise draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-01 Common sense Cases where default IP-FRR behavior is not ideal Need for manageability to enforce an ideal path Turns out to always be the post-convergence one… Common sense The operator configures metrics to obtain optimum paths for its services (bw, delay, …) The PLR should respect such objectives upon FRR

How to do TI-LFA Enforcing loop-freeness on post-convergence path Where can I release the packet? At the intersection between the new shortest path and the per-destination Q-Space of the destination How do I reach the release point? By chaining intermediate segments that are assessed to be loop-free Maths: homework How many segments?

How many segments? Link protection, symmetric topology: Maximum 2, guaranteed Most often, 1 is enough When a post-convergence LFA is available: 0 Link protection, asymmetric topology Many asymmetric nets where 2 was the max A few cases here and there were a bit more are needed for a couple of links Node protection Never more than 4, rarely more than 2 -01 contains numbers Eager to increase the number of case studies

Protecting AdjSID’s Packet with 2 top ADJ SIDs [AD, DF, …] The packet should go to D Repair: [C, D, DF, …], oif B B C E A D F

Protecting AdjSID’s Packet with 1 top ADJ SID [AD, F, …] Option The packet could go to D Repair: [C, D, F, …], oif B The packet could go directly to F Repair: [C, F, …], oif B B C E A D F

Summary FRR for Segment Routing Full coverage Post-convergence paths Node and Adjacency Segments No more TLDP session required for FRR purposes Full coverage More than 2 segments are rarely needed Post-convergence paths Better fit with capacity planning Respect of the ISP policy 1 implementation available At least one more on the way

Thank you!