2. K. Salah 1 Label Switching and MPLS & RSVP

3. K. Salah 2 MPLS q Layer 2.5 q Lies between L2 and L3 q Packet switched network using circuit switching technology with variable size packets q Fixed size packet are mostly around 1500 bytes and do not incur significant queuing delays q MPLS is now replacing FR and ATM in the marketplace q mostly because it is better aligned with IP networks q MPLS was q IP Switching by group of engineers at Ipsilon Inc. q Tag Switching by Cisco q Label Switching by IETF

4. K. Salah 3 Re-examining Basics: Routing vs Switching

5. K. Salah 4 IP Routing vs IP Switching

6. K. Salah 5 MPLS: Best of Both Worlds PACKET ROUTING CIRCUIT SWITCHING MPLS +IP IPATM HYBRID Caveat: one cares about combining the best of both worlds only for large ISP networks that need both features! TDM

7. K. Salah 6 History: Ipsilon’s IP Switching: Concept Hybrid: IP routing (control plane) + ATM switching (data plane)

8. K. Salah 7 Ipsilon’s IP Switching ATM VCs setup when new IP “flows” seen, I.e., “data-driven” VC setup

9. K. Salah 8 Tag Switching Key difference: tags can be setup in the background using IP routing protocols (I.e. control-driven VC setup)

10. K. Salah 9 MPLS Broad Concept: Route at Edge, Switch in Core IP Forwarding LABEL SWITCHING IP Forwarding IP #L1IP#L2IP#L3 IP

11. K. Salah 10 MPLS Terminology q LDP: Label Distribution Protocol q LSP: Label Switched Path q FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class q LSR: Label Switching Router q LER: Label Edge Router (Useful term not in standards) q MPLS is “multi-protocol” both in terms of the protocols it supports ABOVE it and BELOW it in the protocol stack!

12. K. Salah 11 MPLS Header q IP packet is encapsulated in MPLS header and sent down LSP q IP packet is restored at end of LSP by egress router … IP Packet 32-bit MPLS Header

13. K. Salah 12 MPLS Label Stack Concept Allows nested tunnels.

14. K. Salah 13 MPLS Header q Label q Used to match packet to LSP q Experimental bits q Carries packet queuing priority (CoS) q Stacking bit: can build “stacks” of labels q Goal: nested tunnels! q a 1-bit bottom of stack flag. If this is set, it signifies that the current label is the last in the stack. q Time to live q Copied from IP TTL TTLLabelEXPS

15. K. Salah 14 Multi-protocol operation The abstract notion of a “label” can be mapped to multiple circuit- or VC-oriented technologies! ATM - label is called VPI/VCI and travels with cell. Frame Relay - label is called a DLCI and travels with frame. TDM - label is called a timeslot its implied, like a lane. X25 - a label is an LCN Proprietary labels: TAG (in tag switching) etc.. Frequency or Wavelength substitution where “label” is a light frequency/wavelength? (idea in G-MPLS)

16. K. Salah 15 Label Encapsulation ATMFREthernetPPP MPLS Encapsulation is specified over various media types. Top labels may use existing format, lower label(s) use a new “shim” label format. VPIVCIDLCI“Shim Label” L2 Label “Shim Label” ……. IP | PAYLOAD

17. K. Salah 16 MPLS Forwarding: Example q An IP packet destined to 134.112.1.5/32 arrives in SF q San Francisco has route for 134.112/16 q Next hop is the LSP to New York San Francisco New York IP Santa Fe 134.112/16 134.112.1.5 1965 1026 0

18. K. Salah 17 MPLS Forwarding Example q San Francisco pre-pends MPLS header onto IP packet and sends packet to first transit router in the path San Francisco New York Santa Fe 134.112/16 IP 1965

19. K. Salah 18 MPLS Forwarding Example q Because the packet arrived at Santa Fe with an MPLS header, Santa Fe forwards it using the MPLS forwarding table q MPLS forwarding table derived from mpls.0 switching table San Francisco New York Santa Fe 134.112/16 IP 1026

20. K. Salah 19 MPLS Forwarding Example q Packet arrives from penultimate router with label 0 q Penultimate (i.e., next to the last) q Egress router sees label 0 and strips MPLS header q Egress router performs standard IP forwarding decision San Francisco New York Santa Fe IP 134.112/16 IP 0

21. K. Salah 20 Label Setup/Signaling: MPLS Using IP Routing Protocols 47.1 47.2 47.3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Destination based forwarding tables as built by OSPF, IS-IS, RIP, etc.

22. K. Salah 21 Regular IP Forwarding 47.1 47.2 47.3 IP 47.1.1.1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 IP destination address unchanged in packet header!

23. K. Salah 22 MPLS Label Distribution q Labels are distributed between LERs and LSRs using the “Label Distribution Protocol” (LDP). q Automatic: q Label Switch Routers in an MPLS network regularly exchange label and reachability information with each other using standardized procedures in order to build a complete picture of the network they can then use to forward packets. q Explicit: q Label Switch Paths (LSPs) are established by the network operator for a variety of purposes, such as to create network-based IP Virtual Private Networks or to route traffic along specified paths through the network.

24. K. Salah 23 MPLS Label Distribution 47.1 47.2 47.3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 Mapping: 0.40 Request: 47.1 Mapping: 0.50 Request: 47.1

25. K. Salah 24 Label Switched Path (LSP) 47.1 47.2 47.3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 IP 47.1.1.1

26. K. Salah 25 #216 #612 #5 #311 #14 #99 #963 #462 - A Vanilla LSP is actually part of a tree from every source to that destination (unidirectional). - Vanilla LDP builds that tree using existing IP forwarding tables to route the control messages. #963 #14 #99 #311 A General Vanilla LSP

27. K. Salah 26 #216 #14 #462 ER-LSP follows route that source chooses. In other words, the control message to establish the LSP (label request) is source routed. #972 #14 #972 A B C Route= {A,B,C} Explicitly Routed (ER-) LSP

28. K. Salah 27 47.1 47.2 47.3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 IP 47.1.1.1 Explicitly Routed (ER-) LSP Contd

29. K. Salah 28 ER LSP - advantages Operator has routing flexibility (policy-based, QoS-based) Can use routes other than shortest path Can compute routes based on constraints in exactly the same manner as ATM based on distributed topology database. (traffic engineering)

30. K. Salah 29 Traffic Engineering q TE: “…that aspect of Internet network engineering dealing with the issue of performance evaluation and performance optimization of operational IP networks …’’ q Two abstract sub-problems: q 1. Define a traffic aggregate (eg: OC- or T-carrier hierarchy, or ATM PVCs) q 2. Map the traffic aggregate to an explicitly setup path q Cannot do this in OSPF or BGP-4 today! q OSPF and BGP-4 offer only a SINGLE path! A B C D 1 12 1 E 2 Can not do this with OSPF A B C D 1 12 1 E 2 Links AB and BD are overloaded A B C D 1 12 4 E 2 Links AC and CD are overloaded

31. K. Salah 30 Why not TE with OSPF/BGP? q Internet connectionless routing protocols designed to find only one route (path) q The “connectionless” approach to TE is to “tweak” (I.e. change) link weights in IGP (OSPF, IS-IS) or EGP (BGP-4) protocols q Limitations: q Performance is fundamentally limited by the single shortest/policy path nature: q All flows to a destination prefix mapped to the same path q Desire to map traffic to different route (eg: for load-balancing reasons) => the single default route MUST be changed q Changing parameters (eg: OSPF link weights) changes routes AND changes the traffic mapped to the routes q Leads to extra control traffic (eg: OSPF floods or BGP-4 update message), convergence problems and routing instability! q Summary: Traffic mapping coupled with route availability in OSPF/BGP! q MPLS de-couples traffic trunking from path setup

32. K. Salah 31 Traffic Engineering w/ MPLS (Step I) q Engineer unidirectional paths through your network without using the IGP’s shortest path calculation San Francisco IGP shortest path traffic engineered path New York

33. K. Salah 32 Traffic Engineering w/ MPLS (Part II) q IP prefixes (or traffic aggregates) can now be bound to MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) San Francisco New York 192.168.1/24 134.112/16

34. K. Salah 33 Traffic Aggregates: Forwarding Equivalence Classes FEC = “A subset of packets that are all treated the same way by a router” The concept of FECs provides for a great deal of flexibility and scalability In conventional routing, a packet is assigned to a FEC at each hop (i.e. L3 look-up), in MPLS it is only done once at the network ingress Packets are destined for different address prefixes, but can be mapped to common path Packets are destined for different address prefixes, but can be mapped to common path IP1 IP2 IP1 IP2 LSR LER LSP IP1#L1 IP2#L1 IP1#L2 IP2#L2 IP1#L3 IP2#L3

35. K. Salah 34 Signaled TE Approach (eg: MPLS) q Features: q In MPLS, the choice of a route (and its setup) is orthogonal to the problem of traffic mapping onto a route q Signaling maps global IDs (addresses, path- specification) to local IDs (labels) q FEC mechanism is for defining traffic aggregates q label stacking is for multi-level opaque tunneling

36. K. Salah 35 RSVP: “Resource reSerVation Protocol” q A generic QoS signaling protocol q An Internet control protocol q Uses IP as its network layer q Originally designed for host-to-host q Uses the IGP to determine paths q RSVP is not q A data transport protocol q A routing protocol q RFC 2205

37. K. Salah 36 Signaling ideas q Classic scheme: sender initiated q SETUP, SETUP_ACK, SETUP_RESPONSE q Admission control q Tentative resource reservation and confirmation q Simplex and duplex setup; no multicast support

38. K. Salah 37 RSVP: Internet Signaling q Creates and maintains distributed reservation state q De-coupled from routing & also to support IP multicast model: q Multicast trees setup by routing protocols, not RSVP q Key features of RSVP: q Receiver-initiated: scales for multicast q Soft-state: reservation times out unless refreshed q Latest paths discovered through “PATH” messages (forward direction) and used by RESV mesgs (reverse direction). q Again dictated by needs of de-coupling from IP routing and to support IP multicast model

39. K. Salah 38 RSVP Path Signaling Example q Signaling protocol sets up path from San Francisco to New York, reserving bandwidth along the way PATH Miami Seattle PATH San Francisco (Ingress) New York (Egress)

40. K. Salah 39 RSVP Path Signaling Example q Once path is established, signaling protocol assigns label numbers in reverse order from New York to San Francisco San Francisco (Ingress) New York (Egress) 1965 1026 3 Miami Seattle RESV

41. K. Salah 40 Call Admission q Session must first declare its QOS requirement and characterize the traffic it will send through the network q R-spec: defines the QOS being requested q T-spec: defines the traffic characteristics q A signaling protocol is needed to carry the R-spec and T- spec to the routers where reservation is required; RSVP is a leading candidate for such signaling protocol

42. K. Salah 41 Call Admission q Call Admission: routers will admit calls based on their R-spec and T-spec and base on the current resource allocated at the routers to other calls.

43. K. Salah 42 Summary: Basic RSVP Path Signaling SenderReceiverRouter q Reservation for simplex (unidirectional) flows q Ingress router initiates connection q “Soft” state q Path and resources are maintained dynamically q Can change during the life of the RSVP session q Path message sent downstream q Resv message sent upstream PATH RESV PATH RESV PATHRESV

44. K. Salah 43 MPLS Extensions to RSVP q Path and Resv message objects q Explicit Route Object (ERO) q Label Request Object q Label Object q Record Route Object q Session Attribute Object q Tspec Object q For more detail on contents of objects: daft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-04.txt Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels

45. K. Salah 44 Explicit Route Object q Used to specify the explicit route RSVP Path messages take for setting up LSP q Can specify loose or strict routes q Loose routes rely on routing table to find destination q Strict routes specify the directly-connected next router q A route can have both loose and strict components

46. K. Salah 45 ERO: Strict Route A FE D C B IngressLSR EgressLSR q Next hop must be directly connected to previous hop B strict; C strict; E strict; D strict; F strict; EROStrict

47. K. Salah 46 ERO: Loose Route A FE D C B EgressLSR q Consult the routing table at each hop to determine the best path: similar to IP routing option concept IngressLSR D loose; EROLoose

48. K. Salah 47 ERO: Strict/Loose Path A FE D C B EgressLSR q Strict and loose routes can be mixed IngressLSR C strict; D loose; F strict; EROStrict Loose

49. K. Salah 48 RSVP Message Aggregation q Bundles up to 30 RSVP messages within single PDU q Controls q Flooding of PathTear or PathErr messages q Periodic refresh messages (PATH and RESV) q Enhances protocol efficiency and reliability q Disabled by default