One document matched: draft-eckert-bier-te-arch-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<!-- Change to "yes" if someone has disclosed IPR for the draft -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-eckert-bier-te-arch-00" category="std">
<front>
<title abbrev="BIER-TE ARCH">Traffic Enginering for Bit Index Explicit Replication BIER-TE</title>
<author fullname="Toerless Eckert" initials="T.T.E." surname="Eckert">
<organization>Cisco</organization>
<address>
<email>eckert@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="5" month="March" year="2015"/>
<abstract>
<t>
This document proposes an architecture for BIER-TE: Traffic
Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER). </t>
<t> BIER-TE shares part of its architecture with BIER as
described in <xref target="I-D.wijnands-bier-architecture"/>.
It also proposes to share the packet format with BIER.</t>
<t> BIER-TE forwards and replicates packets like BIER based on a
BitString in the packet header but it does not require an IGP.
It does support traffic engineering by explicit hop-by-hop forwarding
and loose hop forwarding of packets. It does support Fast ReRoute (FRR)
for link and node protection and incremental deployment. Because BIER-TE
like BIER operates without explicit in-network tree-building but also
supports traffic engineering, it is more similar to SR than RSVP-TE. </t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<section anchor="overview" title="Overview">
<t> This document specifies the architecture for BIER-TE: traffic
engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication BIER.</t>
<t> BIER-TE shares architecture and packet formats with BIER as
described in <xref target="I-D.wijnands-bier-architecture"/>. </t>
<t> BIER-TE forwards and replicates packets like BIER based on a
BitString in the packet header but it does not require an IGP.
It does support traffic engineering by explicit hop-by-hop forwarding
and loose hop forwarding of packets. It does support Fast ReRoute (FRR)
for link and node protection and incremental deployment. Because BIER-TE
like BIER operates without explicit in-network tree-building but also
supports traffic engineering, it is more similar to SR than RSVP-TE. </t>
<t> The key differences over BIER are: </t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t> BIER-TE replaces in-network autonomous path calculation by explicit
paths calculated offpath by the BIER-TE controller host. </t>
<t> In BIER-TE every BitPosition of the BitString of a BIER-TE packet
indicates one or more adjacencies - instead of a BFER as
in BIER.</t>
<t> BIER-TE in each BFR has no routing table but only a BIER-TE Forwarding
Table (BIFT) indexed by BitPosition and populated with only those
adjacencies to which the BFR should replicate packets to. </t>
</list></t>
<t> Currently, BIER-TE does not support BIER-sub-domains and it does not
not use BFR-id or "Set Identifiers" (SI) in BIER-TE
headers that share the same format as BIER headers.</t>
</section>
<!-- overview -->
<section anchor="requirements" title="Requirements Language">
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
</section>
<!-- requirements -->
</section>
<!-- intro -->
<section anchor="layering" title="Layering">
<t>End to end BIER-TE operations consists of four components:
The "Multicast Flow Overlay", the "BIER-TE Controller Host",
the "Routing Underlay" and the "BIER-TE forwarding layer".</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
Picture 2: Layers of BIER-TE
<------BGP/PIM----->
|<-IGMP/PIM-> multicast flow <-PIM/IGMP->|
overlay
[Bier-TE Controller Host]
^ ^ ^
/ | \ BIER-TE control protocol
| | | eg.: Netconf/Restconf/Yang
v v v
Src -> Rtr1 -> BFIR-----BFR-----BFER -> Rtr2 -> Rcvr
|--------------------->|
BIER-TE forwarding layer
|<- BIER-TE domain-->|
|<--------------------->|
Routing underlay
]]></artwork></figure>
<section anchor="flow-overlay" title="The Multicast Flow Overlay">
<t>The Multicast Flow Overlay operates as in BIER. See
<xref target="I-D.wijnands-bier-architecture"/>. Instead of
interacting with the BIER layer, it interacts with the BIER-TE Controller
Host</t>
</section>
<!-- flow-overlay -->
<section anchor="controller" title="The BIER-TE Controller Host">
<t>The BIER-TE controller host is an offpath central host.
It communicates via protocols
such as Netconf/Restconf/Yang with BFRs.
The protocols used between BFRs and the controller are outside the
scope of this document. This document is only
concerned about the logic how a controller can
assign BitPositions to the topology and BitStrings to BIER-TE packets:</t>
<t>During bring-up or modifications of the network topology, the controller needs
to talk to all BFRs to assign BitPositions to adjacencies of the network topology.
During day-to-day operations of the network it only needs to talks to BFIRs
to install BitStrings for multicast flows.</t>
<t>These two tasks have the following steps:</t>
<section anchor="assignment" title="Assignment of BitPositions to adjacencies of the network topology">
<t>The BIER-TE controller host tracks the BFR topology of the
BIER-TE domain. It determines what adjacencies require
BitPositions so that BIER-TE explicit paths can be built
through them as desired by operator policy.</t>
<t>The controller then pushes the BitPositions/adjacencies to the BIFT of
the BFRs, populating only those BitPositions to the BIFT of each
BFR to which that BFR should be able to send packets to - adjacencies
connecting to this BFR.</t>
</section>
<!-- assignment -->
<section anchor="changes-in-topo" title="Changes in the network topology">
<t>If the network topology changes (not failure based) so that adjacencies that
are assigned to BitPositions are no longer needed, the controller can re-use those
BitPositions for new adjacencies. First, these BitPositions need to be removed from
any BFIR flow state and BFR BIFT state (and BTAFT if FRR is supported, see below), then
they can be repopulated, first into BIFT (and if FRR is supported BTAFT), then into BFIR.</t>
</section>
<!-- changes-in-topo -->
<section anchor="setup" title="Set up per-multicast flow BIER-TE state">
<t>The BIER-TE controller host tracks the multicast flow overlay
to determine what multicast flow needs to be sent by a BFIR
to which set of BFER. It calculates the desired distribution
tree across the BIER-TE domain based on algorithms outside the
scope of this document (eg.: CSFP, Steiner Tree,...). It then
pushes the calculated BitString into the BFIR.</t>
</section>
<!-- setup -->
<section anchor="failures" title="Link/Node Failures and Recovery">
<t>When link or nodes fail or recover in the topology, BIER-TE can quickly
respond with the optional FRR procedures described below. It can also
more slowly react by recalculating the BitStrings of affected multicast
flows. This reaction is slower than the FR procedure because the
controller needs to receive link/node up/down indications, recalculate
the desired BitStrings and push them down into the BFIRs. with FRR,
this is all performed locally on a BFR receiving the adjacency
up/down notification.</t>
</section>
<!-- failures -->
</section>
<!-- controller -->
<section anchor="forwarding-layer" title="The BIER-TE Forwarding Layer">
<t>When the BIER-TE Forwarding Layer receives a packet, it simply looks
up the BitPositions that are set in the BitString of the packet in the
Bit Index Forwarding Table (BIFT) that was populated by the BIER-TE controller
host. For every BP that is set in the BitString, and that has one or
more adjacencies in the BIFT, a copy is made according to the type
of adjacencies for that BP in the BIFT. Before sending any copy, the
BFR resets all BitPositions in the BitString of the packet to which it
can create a copy. This is done to inhibit that packets can loop.</t>
<t>If the BFR support BIER-TE FRR operations, then the BIER-TE forwarding
layer will receive fast adjacency up/down notification uses the BIER-TE FRR Adjacency Table
to modify the BitString of the packet before it performs BIER-TE forwarding. This is detailed in the FRR section.</t>
</section>
<!-- forwarding-layer -->
<section anchor="routing-underlay" title="The Routing Underlay">
<t>BIER-TE is sending BIER packets to directly connected
BIER-TE neighbors as L2 (unicasted) BIER packets without requiring a
routing underlay. BIER-TE forwarding uses the Routing underlay for
forward_routed adjacencies which copy BIER-TE packets to not-directly-connected
BFRs (see below for adjacency definitions).
</t>
<t>If the BFR intends to support FRR for BIER-TE, then the BIER-TE
forwarding plane needs to receive fast adjacency up/down notifications:
Link up/down or neighbor up/down, eg.: from BFD. Providing these notifications
is considered to be part of the routing underlay in this document.</t>
</section>
<!-- routing-underlay -->
</section>
<!-- layering -->
<section anchor="forwarding" title="BIER-TE Forwarding">
<section anchor="btft" title="The Bit Index Forwarding Table (BIFT)">
<t>The Bit Index Forwarding Table (BIFT) exists in every BFR. It is a
table indexed by BitPosition and is populated by the BIER-TE control
plane. Each index can be empty or contain a list of one or more
adjacencies.</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Index | Adjacencies |
==================================================================
| 1 | forward_connected(interface,neighbor,DNR) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| 2 | forward_connected(interface,neighbor,DNR) |
| | forward_connected(interface,neighbor,DNR) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| 3 | local_decap([VRF]) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| 4 | forward_routed([VRF,]l3-neighbor) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| 5 | <empty> |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| 6 | ECMP({adjacency1,...adjacencyN}, seed) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
...
| BitStringLength | ... |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bit Index Forwarding Table
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>The BIFT is programmed into the data plane of BFRs by the BIER-TE
controller host and used to forward packets, according to the rules
specified in the BIER-TE Forwarding Procedures.</t>
<t>Adjacencies for the same BP when populated in more than one BFR
by the controller do not have to have the same adjacencies. This is
up to the controller. BPs for p2p links are one case (see below).</t>
</section>
<!-- btft -->
<section anchor="atypes" title="Adjacency Types">
<section anchor="forward-connected" title="Forward Connected">
<t>A "forward_connected" adjacency is towards a directly connected
BFR neighbor using an interface address of that BFR on the connecting
interface. A forward_connected adjacency does not route packets
but only L2 forwards them to the neighbor.</t>
<t>Packets sent to an adjacency with "DoNotReset" (DNR) set in the
BIFT will not have the BitPosition for that adjacency reset when the
BFR creates a copy for it. The BitPosition will still be reset for
copies of the packet made towards other adjacencies. The can be
used for example in ring topologies as explained below.</t>
</section>
<!-- forward-connected -->
<section anchor="forward-routed" title="Forward Routed">
<t>A "forward_routed" adjacency is an adjacency towards a BFR that
is not a forward_connected adjacency: towards a loopback address
of a BFR or towards an interface address that is non-directly
connected. Forward_routed packets are forwarded via the Routing
Underlay.</t>
<t>If the Routing Underlay has multiple
paths for a forward_routed adjacency, it will perform ECMP independent
of BIER-TE for packets forwarded across a forward_routed adjacency.</t>
<t>If the Routing Underlay has FRR, it will perform FRR independent
of BIER-TE for packets forwarded across a forward_routed adjacency.</t>
</section>
<!-- forward-routed -->
<section anchor="forward-ecmp" title="ECMP">
<t>An "Equal Cost Multipath" (ECMP) adjacency has a list of two or
more adjacencies included in it. It copies the BIER-TE to
one of those adjacencies based on the ECMP hash calculation.
The BIER-TE ECMP hash algorithm must select the same adjacency
from that list for all packets with the same "entropy" value in
the BIER-TE header if the same number of
adjacencies and same seed are given as parameters. Further use of the
seed parameter is explained below.</t>
</section>
<!-- forward-ecmp -->
<section anchor="forward-local" title="Local Decap">
<t>A "local_decap" adjacency passes a copy of the payload of
the BIER-TE packet to the packets NextProto within the BFR (IPv4/IPv6, Ethernet,...).
A local_decap adjacency turns the BFR into a BFER for matching
packets. Local_decap adjacencies require the BFER to support
routing or switching for NextProto to determine how to further
process the packet.</t>
</section>
<!-- forward-local -->
</section>
<!-- atypes -->
<section anchor="basic" title="Basic BIER-TE Forwarding Example">
<t>Step by step example of basic BIER-TE forwarding. This does not
use ECMP or forward_routed adjacencies nor does it try to minimize
the number of required BitPositions for the topology.</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
Picture 1: Forwarding Example
[Bier-Te Controller Host]
/ | \
v v v
| p13 p1 |
+- BFIR2 --+ |
| | p2 p6 | LAN2
| +-- BFR3 --+ |
| | | p7 p11 |
Src -+ +-- BFER1 --+
| | p3 p8 | |
| +-- BFR4 --+ +-- Rcv1
| | | |
| |
| p14 p4 |
+- BFIR1 --+ |
| +-- BFR5 --+ p10 p12 |
LAN1 | p5 p9 +-- BFER2 --+
| +-- Rcv2
|
LAN3
IP |..... BIER-TE network......| IP
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>pXX indicate the BitPositions number
assigned by the BIER-TE controller host to adjacencies in the
BIER-TE topology. For example, p9 is the adjacency towards BFR9
on the LAN connecting to BFER2.</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
BIFT BFIR2:
p13: local_decap()
p2: forward_connected(BFR3)
BIFT BFR3:
p1: forward_connected(BFIR2)
p7: forward_connected(BFER1)
p8: forward_connected(BFR4)
BIFT BFER1:
p11: local_decap()
p6: forward_connected(BFR3)
p8: forward_connected(BFR4)
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>...and so on.</t>
<t>Traffic needs to flow from BFIR2 towards Rcv1, Rcv2.
The controller determines it wants it to pass across
the following paths:</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
-> BFER1 ---------------> Rcv1
BFIR2 -> BFR3
-> BFR4 -> BFR5 -> BFER2 -> Rcv2
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>These paths equal to the following BitString:
p2, p5, p7, p8, p10, p11, p12 </t>
<t>This BitString is set up in BFIR2. Multicast packets
arriving at BFIR2 from Src are assigned this BitString.</t>
<t>BFIR2 forwards based on that BitString.
It has p2 and p13 populated. Only p13 is in BitString
which has an adjacency towards BFR3. BFIR2 resets p2 in BitString
and sends a copy towards BFR2.</t>
<t>BFR3 sees a BitString of p5,p7,p8,p10,p11,p12.
It is only interested in p1,p7,p8. It creates a copy of the
packet to BFER1 (due to p7) and one to BFR4 (due to p8). It
resets p7, p8 before sending.</t>
<t>BFER1 sees a BitString of p5,p10,p11,p12.
It is only interested in p6,p7,p8,p11 and therefore considers
only p11. p11 is a "local_decap" adjacency installed
by the BIER-TE controller host because BFER1 should pass
packets to IP multicast. The local_decap adjacency instructs
BFER1 to create a copy, decapsulate it from the BIER header
and pass it on to the NextProtocol, in this example IP multicast.
IP multicast will then forward the packet out to LAN2 because
it did receive PIM or IGMP joins on LAN2 for the traffic. </t>
<t>Further processing of the packet in BFR4, BFR5 and BFER2
accordingly.</t>
</section>
<!-- basic -->
</section>
<!-- forwarding -->
<section anchor="bitpositions" title="BIER-TE Controller Host BitPosition Assignments">
<t>This section describes how the BIER-TE controller host can use the
different BIER-TE adjacency types to define the BitPositions of a BIER-TE domain.</t>
<t>Because the size of the BitString is limiting the size of the
BIER-TE domain, many of the options described exist to support larger
topologies with fewer BitPositions (4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8).</t>
<section anchor="p2p-links" title="P2P Links">
<t>Each P2p link in the BIER-TE domain is assigned one unique BitPosition
with a forward_connected adjacency pointing to the neighbor on the
p2p link.</t>
</section>
<!-- p2p-links -->
<section anchor="bfer" title="BFER">
<t>Every BFER is given a unique BitPosition with a local_decap adjacency.</t>
</section>
<!-- bfer -->
<section anchor="bfirs" title="Leaf BFIRs">
<t>Leaf BFIRs are BFIRs where incoming BIER-TE packets never need to
be forwarded to another BFR but are only sent to the BFIR
to exit the BIER-TE domain. For example, in networks where PEs
are spokes connected to P routers, those PEs are Leaf BFIRs unless
there is a U-turn between two PEs.</t>
<t>All leaf-BFIR in a BIER-TE domain can share a single BitPosition.
This is possible because the BitPosition for the adjacency to reach the BFIR
can be used to distinguish whether or not packets should reach the BFIR.</t>
<t>This optimization will not work if an upstream interface of the BFIR
is using a BitPosition optimized as described in the following two
sections (LAN, Hub and Spoke).</t>
</section>
<!-- bfirs -->
<section anchor="lans" title="LANs">
<t>In a LAN, the adjacency to each neighboring BFR on the LAN
is given a unique BitPosition. The adjacency of this BitPosition
is a forward_connected adjacency towards the BFR and this BitPosition
is populated into the BIFT of all the other BFRs on that LAN.</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
BFR1
|p1
LAN1-+-+---+-----+
p3| p4| p2|
BFR3 BFR4 BFR7
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>If Bandwidth on the LAN is not an issue and most BIER-TE traffic
should be copied to all neighbors on a LAN, then BitPositions
can be saved by assigning just a single BitPosition to the LAN
and populating the BitPosition of the BIFTs of each BFRs on
the LAN with a list of forward_connected adjacencies to all other
neighbors on the LAN.</t>
<t>This optimization does not work in the face of BFRs redundantly
connected to more than one LANs with this optimization because
these BFRs would receive duplicates and forward those duplicates into
the opposite LANs. Adjacencies of such BFRs into their LANs still
need a separate BitPosition.</t>
</section>
<!-- lans -->
<section anchor="hubnspoke" title="Hub and Spoke">
<t>In a setup with a hub and multiple spokes connected via separate
p2p links to the hub, all p2p links can share the same BitPosition.
The BitPosition on the hubs BIFT is set up with a list of
forward_connected adjacencies, one for each Spoke.</t>
<t>This option is similar to the BitPosition optimization in
LANs: Redundantly connected spokes need their own BitPositions.</t>
</section>
<!-- hubnspoke -->
<section anchor="rings" title="Rings">
<t>In L3 rings, instead of assigning a single BitPosition for
every p2p link in the ring, it is possible to save BitPositions by
setting the "Do Not Reset" (DNR) flag on forward_connected adjacencies.</t>
<t>For the rings shown in the following picture, a single BitPosition
will suffice to forward traffic entering the ring at BFRa or BFRb
all the way up to BFR1:</t>
<t>On BFRa, BFRb, BFR30,... BFR3, the BitPosition is populated with
a forward_connected adjacency pointing to the clockwise neighbor
on the ring and with DNR set. On BFR2, the adjacency also points
to the clockwise neighbor BFR1, but without DNR set. Handling
DNR this way ensures that copies forwarded from any BFR in the
ring to a BFR outside the ring will not have this BitPosition,
therefore minimizing the chance to create loops.</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
v v
| |
L1 | L2 | L3
/-------- BFRa ---- BFRb --------------------\
| |
\- BFR1 - BFR2 - BFR3 - ... - BFR29 - BFR30 -/
| | L4 | |
p33| p15|
BFRd BFRc
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<!-- rings -->
<section anchor="ecmp" title="Equal Cost MultiPath (ECMP)">
<t>The ECMP adjacency allows to use just one BP per link
bundle between two BFRs instead of one BP for each p2p member
link of that link bundle. In the following picture, one BP
is used across L1,L2,L3 and BFR1/BFR2 have for the BP</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
--L1-----
BFR1 --L2----- BFR2
--L3-----
BIFT entry in BFR1:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Index | Adjacencies |
==================================================================
| 6 | ECMP({L1-to-BFR2,L2-to-BFR2,L3-to-BFR2}, seed) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
BIFT entry in BFR2:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Index | Adjacencies |
==================================================================
| 6 | ECMP({L1-to-BFR1,L2-to-BFR1,L3-to-BFR1}, seed) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>In the following example, all traffic from BFR1 towards BFR10 is
intended to be ECMP load split equally across the topology. This
example is not mean as a likely setup, but to illustrate that ECMP can
be used to share BPs not only across link bundles, and it explains
the use of the seed parameter.</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
BFR1
/ \
/L11 \L12
BFR2 BFR3
/ \ / \
/L21 \L22 /L31 \L32
BFR4 BFR5 BFR6 BFR7
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
BFR8 BFR9
\ /
\ /
BFR10
BIFT entry in BFR1:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| 6 | ECMP({L11-to-BFR2,L12-to-BFR3}, seed) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
BIFT entry in BFR2:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| 6 | ECMP({L21-to-BFR4,L22-to-BFR5}, seed) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
BIFT entry in BFR3:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| 6 | ECMP({L31-to-BFR6,L32-to-BFR7}, seed) |
------------------------------------------------------------------
]]></artwork></figure>
<t> With the setup of ECMP in above topology, traffic would not be
equally load-split. Instead, links L22 and L31 would see no traffic
at all: BFR2 will only see traffic from BFR1 for which the ECMP
hash in BFR1 selected the first adjacency in a list of 2 adjacencies:
link L11-to-BFR2. When forwarding in BFR2 performs again an ECMP
with two adjacencies on that subset of traffic, then it will
again select the first of its two adjacencies to it: L21-to-BFR4. And
therefore L22 and BFR5 sees no traffic. </t>
<t>To resolve this issue, the ECMP adjaceny on BFR1 simply needs to
be set up with a different seed than the ECMP adjacncies on BFR2/BFR3</t>
<t>This issue is called polarization. It depends on the
ECMP hash. It is possible to build ECMP that does not have
polarization, for example by taking entropy from the actual
adjacency members into account, but that can make it harder to
achieve evenly balanced load-splitting on all BFR without making
the ECMP hash algorithm potentially too complex for fast forwarding
in the BFRs.</t>
</section>
<!-- ecmp -->
<section anchor="routed" title="Routed adjacencies">
<t>Routed adjacencies can reduce the number of BitPositions
required when the traffic engineering requirement is not hop-by-hop
explicit path selection, but loose-hop selection.</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
............... ...............
BFR1--... Redundant ...--L1-- BFR2... Redundant ...---
\--... Network ...--L2--/ ... Network ...---
BFR4--... Segment 1 ...--L3-- BFR3... Segment 2 ...---
............... ...............
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>Assume he requirement in above network is to explicitly engineer
paths such that specific traffic flows are passed from segment 1
to segment 2 via link L1 (or via L2 or via L3).</t>
<t>To achieve this, BFR1 and BFR4 are set up with a forward_routed
adjacency BitPosition towards an address of BFR2 on link L1
(or link L2 BFR3 via L3).</t>
<t>For paths to be engineered through a specific node BFR2 (or BFR3),
BFR1 and BFR4 are set up up with a forward_routed adjacency BitPosition
towards a loopback address of BFR2 (or BFR3).</t>
<section anchor="without" title="Supporting nodes without BIER-TE">
<t>Routed adjacencies also enable incremental deployment of BIER-TE.
Only the nodes through which BIER-TE traffic needs to be steered -
with or without replication - need to support BIER-TE. Where
they are not directly connected to each other, forward_routed
adjacencies are used to pass over non BIER-TE enabled nodes.</t>
</section>
<!-- without -->
</section>
<!-- routed -->
</section>
<!-- bitpositions -->
<section anchor="avoiding" title="Avoiding loops and duplicates">
<section anchor="loops" title="Loops">
<t>Whenever BIER-TE creates a copy of a packet, the BitString of
that copy will have all BitPositions cleared that are associated
with adjacencies in the BFR. This inhibits looping of packets.
The only exception are adjacencies with DNR set.</t>
<t>With DNR set, looping can happen. Consider in the ring picture
that link L4 from BFR3 is plugged into the L1 interface of
BFRa. This creates a loop where the rings clockwise BitPosition is
never reset for copies of the packets traveling clockwise
around the ring.</t>
<t>To inhibit looping in the face of such physical misconfiguration,
only forward_connected adjacencies are permitted to have DNR set,
and the link layer destination address of the adjacency (eg.: MAC address)
protects against closing the loop. Link layers without port unique
link layer addresses should not used with the DNR flag set.</t>
</section>
<!-- loops -->
<section anchor="duplicates" title="Duplicates">
<t>Duplicates happen when the topology of the BitString is not a
tree but redundantly connecting BFRs with each other. The controller
must therefore ensure to only create BitStrings that are trees in
the topology.</t>
<t>When links are incorrectly physically re-connected before the
controller updates BitStrings in BFIRs, duplicates can happen.
Like loops, these can be inhibited by link layer addressing
in forward_connected adjacencies.</t>
<t>If interface or loopback addresses used in forward_routed adjacencies
are moved from one BFR to another, duplicates can equally happen.
Such re-addressing operations must be coordinated with the controller.</t>
</section>
<!-- duplicates -->
</section>
<!-- avoiding -->
<section anchor="frr" title="FRR">
<t>FRR is an optional procedure. To leverage it, the BIER-TE
controller host and BFRs need to support it. It does not have
to be supported on all BFRs, but only those that
are attached to a link/adjacency for which FRR support is required.</t>
<t>If BIER-TE FRR is supported by the BIER-TE controller host,
then it needs to calculate the desired backup paths for link and/or
node failures in the BIER-TE domain and download this information
into the BIER-TE Adjacency FRR Table (BTAFT) of the BFRs. The BTAFT
then drives FRR operations in the BIER-TE forwarding plane of that BFR.
</t>
<section anchor="btaft" title="The BIER-TE Adjacency FRR Table (BTAFT)">
<t>The BIER-TE IF FRR Table exists in every BFR that is supporting
BIER-TE FRR procedures. It is indexed by FRR Adjacency Index.
Associated with each FRR Adjacency Index is a ResetBitmask,
AddBitmask and BitPosition.</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
-----------------------------------------------------------
| FRR Adjacency | BitPosition | ResetBitmask | AddBitmask |
| Index | | | |
===========================================================
| 1 | 5 | ..0010000 | ..11000000 |
-----------------------------------------------------------
...
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>An FRR Adjacency is an adjacency that is used in the BIFT of the BFR.
The BFR has to be able to determine whether the adjacency
is up or down in less than 50msec. An FRR adjacency can be a
forward_connected adjacency with fast L2 link state Up/Down state
notifications or a forward_connected or forward_routed
adjacency with a fast aliveness mechanism such as BFD.
Details of those mechanism are outside the scope of this architecture.</t>
<t>The FRR Adjacency Index is the index that would be indicated on
the fast Up/Down notifications to the BIER-TE forwarding plane</t>
<t>The BitPosition is the BP in the BIFT in which the FRR
Adjacency is used</t>
</section>
<!-- btaft -->
<section anchor="frr-forwarding" title="FRR in BIER-TE forwarding">
<t> The BIER-TE forwarding plane receives fast Up/Down notifications with
the FRR Adjacency Index. From the BitPosition in the BTAFT entry,
it remembers which BPs are currently affected (have a down adjacency).</t>
<t> When a packet is received, BIER-TE forwarding checks if it has
affected BPs to which it would forward. If it does, it will remove
the ResetBitmask bits from the packets BitString and add the AddBitmask
bits to the packets BitString.</t>
<t>Afterwards, normal BIER-TE forwarding occurs, taking the modified
BitString into account.</t>
</section>
<!-- frr-forwarding -->
<section anchor="frr-controller" title="FRR in the BIER-TE Controller Host">
<t>The basic rules how the BIER-TE controller host would calculate
ResetBitMask and AddBitmask are as follows:</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>The BIER-TE controller host has to determine whether a
failure of the adjacency should be taken to indicate link or
node failure. This is a policy decision.</t>
<t>The ResetBitmask has the BitPosition of the failed adjacency.</t>
<t>In the case of link protection, the AddBitmask are the
segments forming a path from the BFR over to the BFR on the
other end of the failed link.</t>
<t>In the case of node protection, the AddBitmask are the segments
forming a tree from the BFR over to all necessary BFR downstream
of the (assumed to be failed) BFR across the failed adjacency.</t>
<t>The ResetBitmask is extended with those segments that could
lead to duplicate packets if the AddBitmask is added to
possible BitStrings of packets using the failing BitPosition.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<!-- frr-controller -->
<section anchor="frr-benefits" title="BIER-TE FRR Benefits">
<t>Compared to other FRR solutions, such as RSVP-TE/P2MP FRR, BIER-TE
FRR has two key distinctions</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>It maintains the goal of BIER-TE not to establish in-network
per multicast traffic flow state. For that reason, the backup
path/trees are only tied to the topology but not to individual
distribution trees.</t>
<t>For the case of node failure, it allows to build a path engineered
backup tree (4.) as opposed to only a set of p2p backup tunnels.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<!-- frr-controller -->
</section>
<!-- frr -->
<section anchor="pseudocode" title="BIER-TE Forwarding Pseudocode">
<t>The following sections of Pseudocode are meant to illustrate the
BIER-TE forwarding plane. This code is not meant to be normative
but to serve both as a potentially easier to read and more precise
representation of the forwarding functionality and to illustrate
how simple BIER-TE forwarding is and that it can be efficiently
be implemented.</t>
<t>The following procedure is executed on a BFR whenever the BIFT is
changed by the BIER-TE controller host:</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
global MyBitsOfInterest
void BIFTChanged()
{
for (Index = 0; Index++ ; Index <= BitStringLength)
if(BIFT[Index] != <empty>)
MyBitsOfInterest != 2<<(Index-1)
}
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>The following procedure is executed whenever an adjacency
used for BIER-TE FRR changes state:</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
global ResetBitMaskByBT[BitStringLength]
global AddtBitMaskByBT[BitStringLength]
global FRRaffectedBP
void FrrUpDown(FrrAdjacencyIndex, UpDown)
{
global FRRAdjacenciesDown
local Idx = FrrAdjacencyIndex
if (UpDown == Up)
FRRAdjacenciesDown &= ~ 2<<(FrrAdjacencyIndex-1)
else
FRRAdjacenciesDown |= 2<<(FrrAdjacencyIndex-1)
for (Index = GetFirstBitPosition(FRRAdjacenciesDown); Index ;
Index = GetNextBitPosition(FRRAdjacenciesDown, Index))
local BP = BTAFT[Index].BitPosition
FRRaffectedBP |= 2<<(Index)
ResetBitMaskByBT[BP] |= BTAFT[Index].ResetBitMask
AddBitMaskByBT[BP] |= BTAFT[Index].AddBitMask
}
]]></artwork></figure>
<t>The following procedure is executed whenever a BIER-TE
packet is to be forwarded:</t>
<figure> <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
void ForwardBierTePacket (Packet)
{
// We calculate in BitMask the subset of BPs of the BitString
// for which we have adjacencies. This is purely an
// optimization to avoid to replicate for every BP
// set in BitString only to discover that for most of them,
// the BIFT has no adjacency.
local BitMask = Packet->BitString
Packet->BitString &= ~MyBitsOfInterest
BitMask &= MyBitsOfInterest
// FRR Operations
// Note: this algorithm is not optimal yet for ECMP cases
// it performs FRR replacement for all candidate ECMP paths
local MyFRRBP = BitMask & FRRaffectedBP
for (BP = GetFirstBitPosition(MyFRRNP); BP ;
BP = GetNextBitPosition(MyFRRNP, BP))
BitMask &= ~ResetBitMaskByBT[BP]
BitMask |= ResetBitMaskByBT[BT]
// Replication
for (Index = GetFirstBitPosition(BitMask); Index ;
Index = GetNextBitPosition(BitMask, Index))
foreach adjacency BIFT[Index]
if(adjacency == ECMP(ListOfAdjacencies, seed) )
I = ECMP_hash(sizeof(ListOfAdjacencies),
Packet->Entropy, seed)
adjacency = ListOfAdjacencies[I]
PacketCopy = Copy(Packet)
switch(adjacency)
case forward_connected(interface,neighbor,DNR):
if(DNR)
PacketCopy->BitString |= 2<<(Index-1)
SendToL2Unicast(PacketCopy,interface,neighbor)
case forward_routed([VRF],neighbor):
SendToL3(PacketCopy,[VRF,]l3-neighbor)
case local_decap([VRF],neighbor):
DecapBierHeader(PacketCopy)
PassTo(PacketCopy,[VRF,]Packet->NextProto)
}
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<!-- pseudocode -->
<section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>The security considerations are the same as for BIER with
the following differences:</t>
<t>BFR-ids and BFR-prefixes are not used in BIER-TE, nor are procedures
for their distribution, so these are not attack vectors against BIER-TE.</t>
</section>
<!-- security -->
<section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This document requests no action by IANA. </t>
</section>
<!-- iana -->
<section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>The author would like to thank Ijsbrand Wijnands and Neale Ranns for their extensive review and suggestions.</t>
</section>
<!-- ack -->
<section anchor="changes" title="Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]">
<t>
<list>
<t>00: Initial version.</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<!-- changes -->
</middle>
<back>
<references title="References">
&RFC2119;
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.wijnands-bier-architecture"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.wijnands-mpls-bier-encapsulation"?>
<!---->
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 08:21:37 |