draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MPLS Multiple Topology Support draft-zhao-mpls-ldp-multiple-topology-01 draft-zhao-mpls-rsvp-te-multiple-topology-01 IETF 80 – Prague.
Advertisements

March 2010IETF 77, MPLS WG1 Carrying PIM-SM in ASM mode Trees over P2MP mLDP LSPs draft-rekhter-pim-sm-over-mldp-01.txt Y. Rekhter, Juniper Networks R.
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.
OLD DOG CONSULTING Challenges and Solutions for OAM in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting Ltd. Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, Inc.
1 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, nature calls a butterfly. - Anonymous.
© 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 1 Segment Routing Clarence Filsfils – Distinguished Engineer Christian Martin –
Protection Mechanisms for LDP P2MP/MP2MP LSP draft-zhao-mpls-mldp-protections-02.txt Quintin Zhao, Emily Chen, Tao Chou Huawei Technology Daniel King OldDog.
Entire Routes Reflecting capability draft-zhang-idr-bgp-entire-routes-reflect-00.txt Zhang Renhai :
L3VPN WG2012-Jul-301 MVPN/BGP Support for Customers That Use mLDP RFCs 6513/6514: support Multicast VPN Service for customers that use PIM provide extensive.
1 Relates to Lab 4. This module covers link state routing and the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol. Dynamic Routing Protocols II OSPF.
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) presented by: chitralekha tamrakar (B.S.E.) divya krit tamrakar (B.S.E.) Rashmi shrivastava(B.S.E.) prakriti.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 IETF 84 – Vancouver August 2012 LSP Ping Support for P2MP PWs (draft-jain-pwe3-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-00.txt)
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 BGP AS AN MVPN PE-CE Protocol draft-keyupate-l3vpn-mvpn-pe-ce-00 Keyur Patel,
P2MP MPLS-TE FRR with P2MP Bypass Tunnel draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal (Juniper) IETF 67, MPLS WG,
Chapter 22 Network Layer: Delivery, Forwarding, and Routing Part 5 Multicasting protocol.
© J. Liebeherr, All rights reserved 1 Multicast Routing.
Internet Protocols (chapter 18) CSE 3213 Fall 2011.
MPLS WG1 Targeted mLDP Base mLDP spec didn’t consider use of LDP multipoint extensions over Targeted mLDP sessions LDP speaker must choose “upstream LSR”,
1 Multicast Routing Blackhole Avoidance draft-asati-pim-multicast-routing-blackhole-avoid-00 Rajiv Asati Mike McBride IETF 72, Dublin.
PIM Extension For Tunnel Based Multicast Fast Reroute (TMFRR) draft-lwei-pim-tmfrr-00 IETF 76, Hiroshima.
73rd IETF - Minneapolis I. T. N. M. draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling-00.
Label Distribution Protocols LDP: hop-by-hop routing RSVP-TE: explicit routing CR-LDP: another explicit routing protocol, no longer under development.
L3VPN WG mLDP Recursive FEC Using mLDP through a Backbone where there is no Route to the Root draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec Name changed.
76rd IETF - Hiroshima, Japan I. M. draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-csc-02.
82 nd Taipei Protection Mechanisms for LDP P2MP/MP2MP LSP draft-zhao-mpls-mldp-protections-00.txt Quintin Zhao, Emily Chen, Huawei.
85th IETF – Atlanta, USA J. Asghar IJ. Wijnands S.Krishnaswawy V. Arya draft-asghar-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-00
86th IETF – Orlando, USA J. Asghar IJ. Wijnands S.Krishnaswawy V. Arya draft-asghar-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-01
1 Relates to Lab 4. This module covers link state routing and the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol. Dynamic Routing Protocols II OSPF.
BGP extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery in a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN draft-kumaki-pce-bgp-disco-attribute-03.txt Kenji Kumaki KDDI R&D Labs,
Connecting MPLS-SPRING Islands over IP Networks
Softwire Mesh Framework: Multicast
Dynamic Routing Protocols II OSPF
Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPN
MPLS-TP Fault Management Draft draft-boutros-mpls-tp-fault-01
Routing BY, P.B.SHANMATHI.
draft-liu-pim-single-stream-multicast-frr-01
draft-atlas-rtgwg-mrt-mc-arch-02
(How the routers’ tables are filled in)
Presenter: Jeffrey Zhang
PCEP Extensions For Transporting Traffic Engineering (TE) Data
Use Cases for Using PCE to act as a Central Controller (PCECC) Component draft-zhao-teas-pce-central-controller-use-cases-00.txt 95th Buenos Aires.
RSVP Setup Protection draft-shen-mpls-rsvp-setup-protection-02
IP Multicast Fast Reroute follow-up on draft-dimitri-rtgwg-mfrr-framework-00 RTG Working Group IETF 75 meeting Stockholm (Sweden) July 2009.
draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00
Explicitly advertising the TE protocols enabled on links in OSPF
PLR Designation in RSVP-TE FRR
What’s “Inside” a Router?
MPLS Basics 2 2.
LDP Extensions for RMR draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr- extensions
CHAPTER 8 Network Management
N. Kumar, C. Pignataro, F. Iqbal, Z. Ali (Presenter) - Cisco Systems
Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin
Link-State Routing Protocols
An Introduction to MPLS-PIM Interworking
draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh
Link-State Routing Protocols
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
Technical Issues with draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP- based LSPs
Implementing Multicast
draft-ietf-bier-ipv6-requirements-01
BIER P2MP mLDP Signaling
PIM Assert Message Packing
BGP Signaled Multicast
draft-ietf-pim-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh
Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
MLDP Signaling over BIER
draft-ietf-pim-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh-01
Presenter: Raunak Banthia
Inter-AS OAM for SR Networks IETF 105, Montreal
Presentation transcript:

draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00 MoFRR based on TILFA draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00 Yisong Liu (Huawei) IETF105

Problem Background ---MoFRR based on LFA RFC7431 Section 3 describes the selection of the alternate multicast next hop according to the LFA algorithm results. The PIM protocol establishes a standby multicast tree according to the normal protocol procedure of RFC7761. The MLDP protocol establishes an alternate P2MP LSP according to the normal protocol procedure of RFC6388. Root: R1 ULSR: R1 Root: R1 ULSR: R2 RPF S:R1 R2 R4 R4 R1 RPF S:R2 R1 R2 10 5 10 5 Receiver Receiver 10 10 10 10 RPF S:R3 Root: R1 ULSR:R2 Root: R1 ULSR:R3 RPF S:R2 Source R3 Source R3 PIM Primary Join MLDP Primary Label Mapping PIM Backup Join MLDP Backup Label Mapping ULSR: Upstream LSR

Problem Background ---MoFRR based on RLFA RFC7490 extends the LFA to RLFA algorithm and can cover more network deployment scenarios through the tunnel as an alternate path. RFC5496 defines that the PIM Join carries the RPF Vector attribute to iteratively establish a PIM multicast tree. The standby PIM multicast tree can be established according to the RLFA algorithm result. The PQ node is set to the RPF Vector attribute, and the PQ node is used as the root to establish the first PIM multicast tree. Then the second PIM multicast tree is established from the PQ node with the multicast source as the root. MLDP is similar to PIM. RFC 6512 defines Recursive FEC to iteratively establish MLDP P2MP LSP. The standby MLDP P2MP multicast tree can set the PQ node as the root to establish the first P2MP LSP according to the RLFA, and then use the multicast source as the root to establish the second P2MP LSP from PQ node, so to form a complete MLDP P2MP multicast tree. Root: R1 ULSR:R1 Root: R1 ULSR:R2 RPF S:R1 RPF S:R2 R2 R2 R5 R1 R5 R1 10 5 5 10 Receiver Root: R1 ULSR: R2 OV: Q Receiver LDP LSP LDP LSP RPF S:R2 Vector:/ 10 10 10 10 RPF R3:R4 Vector:R3 Root: R3 ULSR:R4 OV:<R1,Q> 10 10 Source Source R3 R4 R3 R4 PQ Node:R3 Root: R3 ULSR:R3 OV:<R1,Q> RPF R3:R3 Vector:R3 PIM Primary Join MLDP Primary Label Mapping PIM Backup Join MLDP Backup Label Mapping

Problem Background ---TILFA in unicast FRR 5 10 Receiver Node SID:R2 IP Payload 10 R5 Node SID:R4 Adj SID: I1-I2 Node SID:R2 IP Payload 10 Q Space Source P Space 10 R4 R3 I2 100 I1 Primary unicast flow SR Repair list [R4, I1-I2, R2] Backup unicast flow Adj SID: I1-I2 Node SID:R2 IP Payload The draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00 defines the FRR solution of TILFA. The unicast traffic can be protected according to the specified segment list, so that it is independent of the network topology and 100% covers various network deployment scenarios.

Problem Statement ---TILFA for PIM MoFRR RPF S:R1 RPF S:R2 R2 R6 R1 5 10 Receiver RPF R4:R5 Vector:R4, I1-I2? 10 R5 PIM Primary Join RPF S:R2 Vector:/ 10 PIM Backup Join Source Q Space P Space 10 RPF R4:R4 Vector:R4, I1-I2? R4 R3 I2 100 I1 SR Repair list [R4, I1-I2, R2] RPF? Up: I2 IIF:I1 Vector:I1-I2? The alternate path provided by the TI-LFA algorithm is actually the Segment List path, which gives the P node NodeSID, and the Adjacency SID between P-Q nodes (possibly multiple) PIM and MLDP cannot directly send protocol packets according to the path of the Segment List to establish an alternate multicast tree. PIM: The PIM RPF Vector attribute defined by RFC5496 can carry the node IP address expressed by the NodeSID, and the explicit RPF Vector defined by RFC7891 can carry the peer IP address expressed by the Adjacency SID. PIM can select RPF upstream with these two Vector attributes to establish a segmentally iterative PIM multicast tree. PIM: If there are multiple PIM neighbors with the same peer IP address of the Adjacency SID (anycast IP), the RPF selection may be incorrect. Therefore, the PIM join cannot be sent according to the path calculated by TILFA. MLDP: The recursive FEC defined by RFC6512 can carry the IP address of the node expressed by NodeSID, but cannot carry the content of the Adjacency SID between P-Q nodes.

PIM TILFA MoFRR Solution RPF S:R1 RPF S:R2 R2 R6 R1 5 10 Receiver RPF R4:R5 Vector:R4, I1-I2 10 RPF S:R2 Vector:/ R5 PIM Primary Join 10 PIM Backup Join Source Q Space P Space 10 RPF R4:R4 Vector:R4, I1-I2 R4 R3 100 I2 I1 SR Repair list [R4, I1-I2, R2] RPF UP:I2 IIF:I1 Vector:I1-I2 R4 corresponding to the NodeSID is looked as the normal RPF vector attribute. PIM look up the unicast routing to R4, and select RPF incoming interface and upstream, and joins hop-by-hop to establish the PIM multicast tree until R4. I1-I2 as the RPF Vector attribute of the adjacency relationship corresponding to the Adjacency SID I2 address is looked as the PIM neighbor and is looked up the interface of the local device. If there are multiple PIM neighbors with the same address, the corresponding local interfaces all needs to be checked. The interface that is the only one corresponding to the I1 address is sent as the RPF incoming interface to send PIM Joins, and the I2 address is used as the RPF upstream address. After the PIM joins the node in the Q space, PIM can look up the unicast route of the multicast source to select the incoming interface and upstream, and so joins hop-by-hop to establish the PIM multicast tree..

PIM RPF Vector Extension Format The original PIM join attribute already defined in RFC5384 : Attr_Type: 0-Vector ; 4-Explicit RPF Vector; Other existing definitions are not related to RPF Vector Attribute. New definition of Adjacency RPF Vector attribute: F bit: 0 , indicating that the unrecognized device does not forward the attribute E bit:indicates the last join attribute Type:TBD Length:depends on the address family of Encoded-Unicast address, including the length of 2 addresses. Value:Encoded-Unicast Address format defined in [RFC7761] Section 4.9.1, including 2 addresses. The first one indicates the address of the local interface, and the second one indicates the address of the peer interface. Only the case of the same address family is supported.

MLDP P2MP TILFA MoFRR Solution Root: R1 ULSR:R1 Root: R1 ULSR:R2 R4 corresponding to the NodeSID is as the upstream node. The MLDP looks up the upstream interface and the upstream LSR of the unicast route to R4, and sends the Label Mapping messages hop by hop to establish the P2MP multicast tree to R4. After the R4 is reached, the Node Address Sub TLV corresponding to the R4 is deleted from the Label Mapping message. I1-I2 as the upstream adjacency corresponding to the Adjacency SID The MLDP neighbors of the I2 address are looked up the corresponding local interface on the local device. If there are multiple MLDP neighbors with the same address, the corresponding local interfaces all needs to be checked. Label mapping is sent on the interface that is unique to the I1 address, and the I2 address is used as the upstream LSR address. After reaching R3, delete the Adjacency Address Sub TLV in the Label Mapping message and check if it is the last Sub TLV then delete the entire Explicit Path TLV. After the node R3 of the Q space is reached, the Explicit Path TLV is no longer existed. The MLDP selects the upstream interface and the upstream LSR of the unicast route to the root R1, and continues to send the Label Mapping messages to establish the P2MP multicast tree. R2 R6 Receiver R1 5 10 Root: R1 Node: R4 ULSR:R5 Path:R4, <I1,I2> 10 Root: R1 ULSR: R2 R5 10 Source Q Space P Space Root: R1 Node: R4 ULSR:R4 Path:R4, <I1,I2> 10 R4 R3 100 I2 I1 Root: R1 Adjacency: I1-I2 ULSR:R3 Path:<I1,I2> MLDP Primary Label Mapping MLDP Backup Label Mapping SR Repair list [R4, I1-I2, R2]

MLDP Label Mapping TLV Extension Format The LDP Label Mapping message format is defined in the RFC5036 Section 3.5.7. The MLDP P2MP protocol uses the message to establish a P2MP multicast tree. The Optional Parameters field can be extended to carry the node or link IP address list specified by the Segment List The TLV format definition in RFC5036 Section 3.3 can be used for the Explicit Path TLV carrying the specified path of the Segment List U bit: 1 referenced in RFC5036 Section 3.3 F bit: 0 referenced in RFC5036 Section 3.3 Type:TBD1 Length:contains all Sub-TLV lengths Value:contains one or more Sub-TLVs, which are recorded in the order of TILFA's Segment List. There are two types of Sub TLVs now. One of the two types is called Node Address Sub TLV which carries the node IP address corresponding to the NodeSID The other is called Adjacency Address Sub TLV which carries the local interface address and the peer interface address corresponding to the Adjacency SID

MLDP Label Mapping Sub TLV Extension Format Node Address Sub TLV carrying the node IP address corresponding to the NodeSID U bit: 1 referenced in RFC5036 Section 3.3 F bit: 0 referenced in RFC5036 Section 3.3 E bit: 1 indicates the last Sub TLV Type:TBD2 Length: IPv4 address 4 octet, IPv6 address 16 octet Value: The IP address of the node corresponding to the NodeSID in the Segment List generated by TILFA Adjacency Address Sub TLV carrying the local interface address and the peer interface address corresponding to the Adjacency SID U bit: 1 referenced in RFC5036 Section 3.3 F bit: 0 referenced in RFC5036 Section 3.3 E bit: 1 indicates the last Sub TLV Type:TBD3 Length: IPv4 address 8 octet, IPv6 address 32 octet Value: The IP address of the local interface and the IP address of the peer interface corresponding to the Adjacency SID in the Segment List generated by TILFA must be recorded in order, and must be the same address family.

Next Step Any questions or comments are Welcomed Seeking for interested co-authors involved Seeking for feedback